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.
Appeasement was the true provokator of the Civil War!!
O, Fish!
You have to understand. Liberals couldn't get established well enough in the executive branch prior to Lincoln to do any real damage. (President Tyler, who served in the Confederate Congress, actually betrayed the Whig party and changed sides, if I am not mistaken. Harrison got cursed for lying to Tenskatowa, (the Non-White Tecumseh's brother) and died of the famous Zero Year Curse (apparently, it only works on Liberals!) a month into office... Other Whiggish candidates before Lincoln had more moderate ways about them, collectivistically).
So, the rise of the radical Republican Liberals was a new thing to most people, who had been lulled into complacency by fairly decent presidents (it says much that Henry Clay could never score that office!) I have to give the credit to Thomas Jefferson, for whom Jefferson Davis was named, and for whom Davis patterned much of his policies while president of the Confederacy...
... and even though the South knew full well what awaited them in the party, if not the man, himself. Liberals are the blood-lust enemy of the true Conservatives! They are Collectivists, and consolidationalists, and of a mob-rules democracy, which our Conservative founding fathers feared most of all, as the death knell of a representative republic!
Will Nol Prosse this case, at this time, and will with-hold adjudication at this time. (Will only charge you court-costs, and will release you on your own recognizance! Court is adjourned! SLAM!)
Beowulf[/quote]
O! Wulfie, I am tiring of you calling all of our 19th century presidents "collectivist". They may have known of Jean Rousseau but they were not communist as the word collectivist implies. They were all "Adam Smith" followers with a little "Alex Hamilton" thrown in the mix.
Neither of those two men I mention can be called "collectivist or communist" for they were the founders of modern "capitalism".
Yes, Abe Lincoln could be call a Liberal in that age for the Liberals are the moral soul of our nation. It was the Liberals of their day that fought to "end slavery", to give "suffrage for women", to support "labor unions", for "civil rights", and bellow "that Hitler was evil". You know that the conservatives fought all those morally just things I listed "tooth and nail" and lost; for conservatives have no morality only self indulgent lust for one's self.
So please do not refer to our 19th century presidents as collectivist for communism did not become vogue until the 20th century.
Wulfie, enjoy your self indulgent world for one day your empty mortal soul will have to stand and be judge.
You have to understand. Liberals couldn't get established well enough in the executive branch prior to Lincoln to do any real damage. (President Tyler, who served in the Confederate Congress, actually betrayed the Whig party and changed sides, if I am not mistaken. Harrison got cursed for lying to Tenskatowa, (the Non-White Tecumseh's brother) and died of the famous Zero Year Curse (apparently, it only works on Liberals!) a month into office... Other Whiggish candidates before Lincoln had more moderate ways about them, collectivistically).
So, the rise of the radical Republican Liberals was a new thing to most people, who had been lulled into complacency by fairly decent presidents (it says much that Henry Clay could never score that office!) I have to give the credit to Thomas Jefferson, for whom Jefferson Davis was named, and for whom Davis patterned much of his policies while president of the Confederacy...
... and even though the South knew full well what awaited them in the party, if not the man, himself. Liberals are the blood-lust enemy of the true Conservatives! They are Collectivists, and consolidationalists, and of a mob-rules democracy, which our Conservative founding fathers feared most of all, as the death knell of a representative republic!
Will Nol Prosse this case, at this time, and will with-hold adjudication at this time. (Will only charge you court-costs, and will release you on your own recognizance! Court is adjourned! SLAM!)
Beowulf
O! Wulfie, I am tiring of you calling all of our 19th century presidents "collectivist". They may have known of Jean Rousseau but they were not communist as the word collectivist implies. They were all "Adam Smith" followers with a little "Alex Hamilton" thrown in the mix.
Neither of those two men I mention can be called "collectivist or communist" for they were the founders of modern "capitalism".
Yes, Abe Lincoln could be call a Liberal in that age for the Liberals are the moral soul of our nation. It was the Liberals of their day that fought to "end slavery", to give "suffrage for women", to support "labor unions", for "civil rights", and bellow "that Hitler was evil". You know that the conservatives fought all those morally just things I listed "tooth and nail" and lost; for conservatives have no morality only self indulgent lust for one's self.
So please do not refer to our 19th century presidents as collectivist for communism did not become vogue until the 20th century.
Wulfie, enjoy your self indulgent world for one day your empty mortal soul will have to stand and be judge.[/quote]
collectivism |kəˈlektəˌvizəm|
noun
the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
• the theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state.
communism |ˈkämyəˌnizəm| (often Communism)
noun
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. See also Marxism .
totalitarian |tōˌtaliˈte(ə)rēən|
adjective
of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state : a totalitarian regime.
You are right. Totalitarian best describes it! Collectivist was too polite to get the effect across!
I'll take your advice, Brother 5Fish!
And BTW, I'll take my chances on judgement day as a Southern Confederate with a Libertarian Right Wing Slant... than with anything the Left side TOTALS(!) are selling!
Look at the flag next to my name and you will see a confederate I am born and raised but had a Yankee dad.
Your last post did not dispel the fact that liberals are the moral soul of our nation and raise their head when injustice is found and bellow the truth.
Tell me what injustice your conservative highness has ever illuminated except to preach some nonsense about secession, slavery, and a host of other southern evils as just.
As the Koran states the unbeliever will stand in judgement on his day of doom, on the day revelation. Will you truly stand a mortal empty shell.
Hi Hanny: Thanks for your reply.
I'm going to use the reply technique here that I've seen used before on this board, when there are a lot of points that need to be addressed.
Quote:
by Hanny
Terry
If i acept that there is no law covering secesion, then such an act is legal, because it is not disallowed by any law. Well, we have a disagreement in the use of terms I guess. Yes, there is no law addressing secession in the US Constitution, but no secession occurred, either. There was a rebellion brought on by some Southern states which attempted to secede. The rebellion was put down.
Otoh SC has rulled as recently as 1995. "The reservation to the States respectively," says the Supreme Court, "can only mean the reservation of the Sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and which they had not parted from by that instrument. And ANY legislation by Congress beyond the limits of the power designated would be trespassing upon the rights of the States or the people, and would not be the supreme law of the land, but null and void."
I don't understand this. It says "legislation by Congress beyond the limits etc..would be trespassing upon the rights of the States,..null and void.." When did this happen? When did Congress try to pass laws trespassing on the rights of states? Which laws were the SC addressing in this 1995 ruling, and which CW era laws are you talking about that supposedly trespassed upon those rights? .
I think i just covered this in other posts to you, the law of insurection is that it only applies to a part of a state against that state, as codified in the law concerning insurection.
So it's illegal for a state to rebel against itself, but not the Union? It looks from the Militia Act that Freddy posted that it's ok for the President to call out militias of other states to put down an insurrection in one of them, even if the "executive" of the state doesn't petition him for help. " President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."
Rebelion only applies when the court rules one has occured, not when a president says one has.
I'm not reading that entire thing Hanny, just because you say it says what you want it to say. How about finding the part that reinforces your statement above and posting that?
Secesion is not rebelion because it uses no use of arms, invokes no use of force, but is instead the will of the people.
What happened at Fort Sumter? I think there were quite a few arms used in that bombardment if I recollect correctly. Somebody evidently had not read the part about where secession doesn't use force of arms. I think they called their actions secession.
No rebelion haveing ever been rulled to haveing occured by any court means i dont follow you.
Well, where does it say that the President has to wait for a court ruling before he knows for sure whether or not there's a rebellion? And if there is such a ruling, do you think it would be wise for a President to wait for such a ruling to come forth before taking action?
jeferson on rebelion.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion." in respect of Shays rebelion.
he also wrote to JQ Adams about in these terms.
"I like a little rebellion now and then.... The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."
That's his opinion I guess. I think if he'd been able to see into the future the carnage and death that was to darken the Union and lay waste to a large portion of it for 4 bloody years he may have changed his stance on that.
Rebilion can only ocur when a subject takes action against its sovriegn, sovreigns never rebel against equal sovriegns, they exert the right of secesion instead.
The Southern sovereign states weren't rebelling against another equal sovereign. They were rebelling against the central Federal government, which was also sovereign, and they were also a part of that sovereignty as well.
Just as the USA can leave the UN at will because every nation is a sovriegn nation and can seccede from the UN Charter at will.
Yes the US can walk out the UN offices at any time...a world organization with an office building in New York. It's not quite as easy for a sovereign US state to leave the Union. (See US Civil War)
lastly the Constition is explict on where Soverignty is delagted by the states to be, it delagtes to the Constition supremacy in law, no state or states ever made the Constion and or the Union a Sovriegn entity.
The Constitution is a federal document, and nowhere in it does it say that a state can leave anytime it wishes.
__________________
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
Hi Hanny: Thanks for your reply.
I'm going to use the reply technique here that I've seen used before on this board, when there are a lot of points that need to be addressed.
Terry
For what it's worth, it's a poor technique because if someone wants to reply to you and hits "QUOTE," the above is all they get. Then they have to cut and paste your words in order to respond to them.
Hanny you try to hide behind the law but after the CW our courts rules that secession is illegal. I can not name the case but I know someone on this board will know it; so Hanny the of our land does state secession is illegal.
A note: The nullification crisis also has all the ear marks of an insurrection.
In Texas v. White 1869 SCOTUS ruled secession was unconstitutional.
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
by Cash
For what it's worth, it's a poor technique because if someone wants to reply to you and hits "QUOTE," the above is all they get. Then they have to cut and paste your words in order to respond to them.
Thanks Cash. Yes, I think I have been caught up once or twice before trying to decipher who said what originally, and who was quoting whom etc. on this board and another by that technique. Can be confusing if not done right by everyone involved.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
Otoh SC has rulled as recently as 1995. "The reservation to the States respectively," says the Supreme Court, "can only mean the reservation of the Sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and which they had not parted from by that instrument. And ANY legislation by Congress beyond the limits of the power designated would be trespassing upon the rights of the States or the people, and would not be the supreme law of the land, but null and void."
And it is up to the courts to rule on laws claimed to be unconstitutional by a state.
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
Your argument would mean that Lincoln had to have truly great foresight to predict the course the nation was on so to manipulate the Southern leaders in firing the first shots of the war.
5fish, I think you are pretty close here. Lincoln knew the war was unavoidable and the last thing he wanted was for the North to fire the first shot. In the sense that he was barely able to guide a runaway train by throwing his entire body weight against it, (hardly any noticeable effect) he was manipulative I guess you could say. The train ended up still on the tracks at the end of the ride. The South got everything they wanted in return - their long sought-after war, their fight for slavery taken to the highest level and no going back, with those first shots at Sumter. The only thing they didn't get was the chance to say the North started the whole thing, which could have possibly brought them foreign aid and recognition.
Quote:
Concilitory or Appeasement being different yes but what would was Lincoln and congress truly doing during the period before the war, Appeasement.
I can't speak for Congress. I just don't know that much. As for Lincoln I think he was doing his best to head off the war, but his mere election to office spurred the South into high gear towards the other way. He did what he could until it was evident that the South would wage this war regardless of what anyone did or said, and began preparing for that inevitability. Appeasement is the word you would use here, and I would not.
I thin
Quote:
In your scenario as in mine Lincoln still provokes the south into firing the first shot. True?
No. He didn't provoke the South into war. He just made certain the first shot would not be fired by the North.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
There is a debate on this board about if the south was provoked or not by Abe Lincoln into insurrection, secession, war and firing the first shots.
I ague:
Abe Lincoln did provoke the southern leaders into committing following acts of insurrection, secession and war.
A background to this argument.
"Our nation had two earlier acts of insurrection before 1860. There was the Whiskey rebellion 1790's and the Nullification crisis 1832 in both the president at that time acted forcefully and made it clear that any acts of insurrection were illegal and they would use military force to end the insurrection. Neither insurrection lasted and both presidents Washington and Jackson made it clear an insurrection is illegal and set the present that the union must be preserved.
Now lets move the 1859 the Southern leaders see a weak waffling president in Buchanan and the fires of insurrection are lighted. In 1860, Southern leaders see a country lawyer from IL. become president and again they believe they have a weak president to contended with and the fires of insurrection explored.
President Lincoln reinforces this view(of weakness) with his first inaugural address where he tries to appease the leaders of the insurrection. This act appeasement reinforced Southern leaders view he was weak and fueled the fires of the insurrection that will lead to war.
I argue again:
Abe Lincolns act of appeasement(show of weakness) to leaders of the insurrection only provoked the leaders to increase their demands and set our nation toward civil war.
If only Lincoln had followed the precedents set by Washington and Jackson and forcefully rejected the insurrection demands and show resolve the war might never had happen.
It was Lincoln's appeasement to the Southern slavers, like England's appeasement to Hitler, fueled the Civil war as it fueled WWII.
Appeasement was the true provokator of the Civil War!!
I haven't read all the posts on this thread, so excuse me if I repeat or ignore points brought out by others. My response is to this fishy idea about Lincoln, and that his so-called appeasement was in fact a manner of provocation to war. I find this sugestion absurd.
How can you call this both appeasment and provocation:
There is neither appeasment nor provokation here. There is a vow to defend and protect the Union and the laws on which it was founded - is that appeasment and/or provokation?. And also an appeal to those who would divide the country, is that appeasment and/or provokation.
There is nothing here but an appeal to reason in these words.
-
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
