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.
Andrew Jackson and Zachery Taylor both threatened the use of force to head off secessionist threats from South Carolina. Nullification in 1830(or so) was a compromise effort by Calhoun as an alternative to secession, which Calhoun saw as hopeless because of the lack of support South Carolina had from the other slave states. But the secession threat was in the background, and there is little doubt that Jackson would have used military force against South Carolina had it formally announced it was seceding.
While the secession crisis of 1860 was unique, Taylor and Jackson both provide precedents of how an American president was likely to react to secession.
Much has been made of the advantage Lincoln would reap if the Confederacy fired the first shot on Ft. Sumter. But Jefferson Davis also hoped to gain an advantage by attacking the garrison.
1. Drive the upper south into secession by provoking Lincoln into responding to the attack.
2. Strengthen his infant government by not tolerating federal installations.
Davis was the president who acted, while Lincoln was attempting to keep the status quo.
Zachary Taylor was a Whig Liberal and Jackson was a Might-as-Well-Have-Been Totalitarian Liberal in word and deed. (because he pulled a Tyler-switcheroo on his party while in office and Calhoun rejected him as a reprobate!)
Thomas Jefferson showed the way to handle Secession! Get out, and don't let the doorknob hit you!
Because as Lincoln said, Our government cannot be two things. It will be all one thing, or all the other. All Liberal, like it is today... with Liberal Light (Centrist Republicans) or Liberal Dark (Democrat Totalitarians)... but both with a forced Union Empire mentality.
Or else like it used to be... Conservative for the most part, with some leanings towards a totalitarian Union - which could be balanced with a bicameral system so long as the totalitarians were in the minority... and the definite voluntary nature of the Union...
You Unionists make my case for me every time you start listing presidents.
I defy you to name one or two presidents whom you liked who were not noted Federalists, Whigs, or outright unashamed Liberals!
And it is not a North/South thing. You had your Copperheads and we had our Cotton Whigs.
And one of the reasons I want to be separated from your people, politically, is because one day, "ye shall be judged with the judgement which ye judge, with-all"...
And as hard and as unfair as you have been to the South
(see the letter from the Yankee in the 17th Maine), the US is ALREADY JUDGED THAT HARSHLY AT THIS MOMENT BY THE WORLD!
I want to not be a party to this slander of the Old South, because the Yankee was responsible for every sin ever blamed on the South... Whether the desire for Secession, or Slavery, itself.
Beowulf, I appreciate the passion with which you post, but I stopped trying to understand your posts quite a while back. It seems that you have a fixation on the word "liberal", and the meaning you have assigned to it, to the extent that you use it in almost every Yankee-bashing sentence you write. Obviously you've found some connection between these two somewhat 'poisonous' terms.
That phenomenon combined with your mentions in earlier posts of having been, I guess, forced or compelled to say things you didn't believe by these liberal forces seems to have brought forth from you an alternate history of the Civil War itself.
Maybe your views have a following in certain circles, and may be even well-known, but it's the first I've heard of them. Never came across this much emphasis on the 'liberal' term very often that I remember, in high school, or college history study of the Civil War, and not in my own reading either.
Nevertheless, you have a right to your opinion, as does everyone else here, and the right to express it as well.
I've always thought of "liberal" as being a concept that embraces different, new ideas, or is willing to give consideration to new or different concepts, ideas, not ordinarily considered etc. And I've always thought of that to be a good thing.
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
Nico: Many do not call the separation of West Virginia a secession. Search the archives for some rather lengthy discussions. Something about a section that rejected secession, set up a government which was recognized as legitimate.
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
Beowulf, I appreciate the passion with which you post, but I stopped trying to understand your posts quite a while back. It seems that you have a fixation on the word "liberal", and the meaning you have assigned to it, to the extent that you use it in almost every Yankee-bashing sentence you write. Obviously you've found some connection between these two somewhat 'poisonous' terms.
That phenomenon combined with your mentions in earlier posts of having been, I guess, forced or compelled to say things you didn't believe by these liberal forces seems to have brought forth from you an alternate history of the Civil War itself.
Maybe your views have a following in certain circles, and may be even well-known, but it's the first I've heard of them. Never came across this much emphasis on the 'liberal' term very often that I remember, in high school, or college history study of the Civil War, and not in my own reading either.
Nevertheless, you have a right to your opinion, as does everyone else here, and the right to express it as well.
I've always thought of "liberal" as being a concept that embraces different, new ideas, or is willing to give consideration to new or different concepts, ideas, not ordinarily considered etc. And I've always thought of that to be a good thing.
Terry
Ahh! There's the evil genius of the thing! These Totalitarians have called themselves the Federalist, Whig,
and Liberal parties for as long as they have existed!
They are NONE of these things, and must be identified as these things they call themselves, if one wishes to discuss them at all!
The theory is never discussed in colleges and the like;
nor in the media. These are all strongholds of "Liberalism"
(totalitarianism).
Frank Conner's book THE SOUTH UNDER SIEGE 1830-2000
lays all this out in absolute lavender, as I never could! he takes you through Reconstruction I and Reconstruction II, and he is rather amazing at what he comes up with!
Amazon.com. confederatereprint.com
If you would like to study the theory, there it is!
Beowulf
PS He also does a nice job with explaining the Anglo-Saxon/ Celtic connections as well.
His basic idea is GOOD VERSUS EVIL; or Calvinist Christian versus Secular Humanism
Again, it is NOT a NORTH/SOUTH problem. It is NOT a BLACK/WHITE issue. It is NOT a SLAVE/FREE issue (except as an excuse), and it is not a Constitutional problem...
It is the advance of Secular Humanism along the fault lines of old rivalries!
No, the word LIBERAL would never get mentioned!! They are still using it!
By Beowulf
Ahh! There's the evil genius of the thing! These Totalitarians have called themselves the Federalist, Whig,
and Liberal parties for as long as they have existed!
They are NONE of these things, and must be identified as these things they call themselves, if one wishes to discuss them at all!
The theory is never discussed in colleges and the like;
nor in the media. These are all strongholds of "Liberalism"
(totalitarianism).
Frank Conner's book THE SOUTH UNDER SIEGE 1830-2000
lays all this out in absolute lavender, as I never could! he takes you through Reconstruction I and Reconstruction II, and he is rather amazing at what he comes up with!
Amazon.com. confederatereprint.com
If you would like to study the theory, there it is!
Beowulf
PS He also does a nice job with explaining the Anglo-Saxon/ Celtic connections as well.
His basic idea is GOOD VERSUS EVIL; or Calvinist Christian versus Secular Humanism
Again, it is NOT a NORTH/SOUTH problem. It is NOT a BLACK/WHITE issue. It is NOT a SLAVE/FREE issue (except as an excuse), and it is not a Constitutional problem...
It is the advance of Secular Humanism along the fault lines of old rivalries!
No, the word LIBERAL would never get mentioned!! They are still using it!
__________________
Ok, well, good luck with all that. It seems to be a major focus of your study and where you've obtained much, if not most of your information. I'm assuming you think the information is accurate, though, to me it seems a bit one-sided and skewed to favor a certain point of view, even favoring certain religions, and dare I say even "origins of birth" or "race". I think it's quite a minefield you're navigating there, with not much to do with real Civil War history. Of course that is my opinion only.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
