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.
__________________ 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
Again, (eternally again), WHAT specific states rights did the South lose with the election of Lincoln?
What rights suddenly ceased to exist when the citizens of this nation cast their votes and put a Republican president into office?
What laws were specifically denied to the South? What parts of the Constitution were no longer in effect in the South when the election of 1860 was over?
I await any response that is on the above topic.
Sincerely,
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 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
1. The Articles were "perpetual." Why wasn't the Constitution any different?
BEOWULF: The Constitution was purposely left as not 'perpetual'... (and the yankee victory has certainly made the most of that!)
2. It is not accurate to refer to the North before 1808 was a "slave trading nation" For one, it is not a nation. Two, while some northerners engaged in the trans Atlantic slave trade, southerners were also engaged in the same slave trade. Does that make the south a slave trading nation? Of course not. The south wasn't a nation either.
BEOWULF:
nation |ˈnā sh ən|
noun
a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory : leading industrialized nations.
Uh, it is accurate. Each state was once seen as a nation!
The United States was a union of nations... at one time.
(2.5.) It is not accurate to describe the North as a monopoly since Northern industry was diverse and diffuse, without any central control or ownership. Defining North as the free states, the majority of the population still worked in farms, rather than factories. You could more accurately state that the South was a federally supported monopoly of slaveowners, considering the special privileges, and extra political power slaveowners had granted themselves.
BEOWULF: The Federal government held their monopoly.
The Feds were giving them great patronage, and translated the loss of this money as "the South attacking the North!"
3. Washington did not "establish any tone." What a unique opinion. Washington is considered as one of our most influential presidents.
In war, Washington commanded an army made up of all the colonies/states. A national army. In peace, he created a national Constitution, then presided over a national government.
BEOWULF: Washington was a great general. He presided, as he was supposed to do. His example did not survive him in Adams. He did not create the Constitution. He presided over a voluntary union ,not an empire, and understood that secession was very possible and likely.
(4.) Your last paragraph, disparaging democracy and the American people("John Q. Publick") seems an restatement of the writings of George Fitzhugh and others, who wrote of an ordered society led by a slaveholding oligarchy and with the mass of others held in varying degrees of bondage.
Fitzhugh couldn't make that pig fly in 1850.
BEOWULF: The attempts at government to control the people should always be seen as out of line... Note the bunch running for president today: None of them has said, "I shall seek to preside, and uphold the Constitution as best as I can".
Again, (eternally again), WHAT specific states rights did the South lose with the election of Lincoln?
What rights suddenly ceased to exist when the citizens of this nation cast their votes and put a Republican president into office?
What laws were specifically denied to the South? What parts of the Constitution were no longer in effect in the South when the election of 1860 was over?
I await any response that is on the above topic.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Well, reading their Ordinances of Secession with the gravity I recommended, and not just shutting down every time you see the S word, you will see that they knew what had happened, and what was coming.
Apparently, the North had been very 'cavalier' towards the Southern states, with regards to Constitutional protections from scumbags like John Brown, and the blatant hostilities shown the people of the South (all Southerners) because slavery still existed therein, as did this resistance to empire the yankees love so much... THIS had caused quite a rift.
Like Sumter, this was a pre-emptive strike based on years of problems with the Second Party and their desire to have their way, and rule at any cost, and at any disregard of the country. The government was now completely sectional, and thoroughly biased.
Letitia Burwell's diary is filled with such implied invectives from the North....
The South had grown very afraid of you people. You were trying to throw off the balance of power without noticing the consequences of your actions. KNEE JERK, we like to call it.
Think about it. You are going to summarily release several million people, all at once, into the system. The freed negroes will absolutely hate your guts for this, because you have stolen the money they freed themselves with, and nullified their investment, while literally EQUALIZING them with every other BLACK in the country.
If you think that THAT was ever going to fly, then you have no clue as to what was happening at all!
And to that, once they get freed, they might not wait until 1960 to demand FIRST CLASS CITIZENSHIP, but they might decide they want it then, and there! And what happens then?
Human beings are not necessarily citizens. But once you make them that way, then they can control you, if they get together on it (like the Consolidationalists did as Republicans).
The ordinances clearly dismiss a flip-flopping, knee-jerker like Lincoln and his sectional party as being not worth the trust of anyone. He wasn't worth it. He and his own party split ways in 1864. I believe they shot him in 1865.
No, I see how they saw Lincoln and his party as absolute anarchists, and even if the South loses the war, and devastation follows, it is better than allowing several million people to amass and dictate policy based on federal abuses such as unchecked abolition and Liberal patronage!
The country cannot remain half Conservative and half Collectivist; it must all be one thing, or all the other!
What rights did the South lose under Lincoln? The right to peacefully secede, as they had done under Buchanan.
The right to be free of Northern agitation and ideologies!
Well, reading their Ordinances of Secession with the gravity I recommended, and not just shutting down every time you see the S word, you will see that they knew what had happened, and what was coming.
And what, according to you, did the South see coming?
Apparently, the North had been very 'cavalier' towards the Southern states, with regards to Constitutional protections from scumbags like John Brown, and the blatant hostilities shown the people of the South (all Southerners) because slavery still existed therein, as did this resistance to empire the yankees love so much... THIS had caused quite a rift.
'Cavalier?' Was there any attempt by the North to save him or disrupt the trial in which he was found guilty and sentenced to death? "Old John Brown...agreed with us in thinking slavery wrong. That cannot excuse violence, bloodshed, and treason. It could avail him nothing that he might think himself right." Abraham Lincoln.
And again, I ask, WHAT blatant hostilties were shown the people of the South?
Like Sumter, this was a pre-emptive strike based on years of problems with the Second Party and their desire to have their way, and rule at any cost, and at any disregard of the country. The government was now completely sectional, and thoroughly biased.
A pre-emptive strike? Like Sumter? Years of problems with the 'Second Party?' You realize the Republican Party was barely a few years old, right? And you realize that Alexander Stephens cautioned the South that Lincoln and his party could do absolutely NOTHING in regards to legislation, the law and the Constitution as the South still had control of the Senate, the Supreme Court and could block any legislation in the House if it chose to do so? So again, specifically, HOW was Lincolna and his party to 'have their way, and rule at any cost? PS: If you think the government before Lincoln was not 'sectional and thoroughly biased' you need to do some serious rereading of the history of the time.
Letitia Burwell's diary is filled with such implied invectives from the North....
The South had grown very afraid of you people. You were trying to throw off the balance of power without noticing the consequences of your actions. KNEE JERK, we like to call it.
Letitia Burwell is a noted government official? A foreign diplomat? A noted historian of the time? A highly trusted aide in the Secession movement? Or is she just one person of the time recording HER impressions, colored by HER personal opinion?
As for the South growing afraid of 'you people' it had reason to be. After playing by the rulebook employed by the South for over 70 years, the balance of power was shifting to the North by means of representation in the House, which under the Constitution, was the way it was SUPPOSED to happen, all nice and legal like. It was partially because of this, the South threw out the playbook when Lincoln was elected in a fair and legal election. The Three-fifths rule and constant political manuvering to have its way was out the window. The only KNEE JERKing here was the South opting for unilateral secession, the ultimate KNEE JERK.
Think about it. You are going to summarily release several million people, all at once, into the system. The freed negroes will absolutely hate your guts for this, because you have stolen the money they freed themselves with, and nullified their investment, while literally EQUALIZING them with every other BLACK in the country.
Where did Lincoln or any member of the Republican party state officially to the people of the South they intended to 'summarily release several million people, all at once, into the system?' Date, document, person making such statement would be appreciated.
Ditto for any statement by freed negroes saying any of the above.
If you think that THAT was ever going to fly, then you have no clue as to what was happening at all!
I have long realized by the content of your posts/opinions who is the one who has 'no clue as to what was happening at all.'
And to that, once they get freed, they might not wait until 1960 to demand FIRST CLASS CITIZENSHIP, but they might decide they want it then, and there! And what happens then?
Justice?
Human beings are not necessarily citizens. But once you make them that way, then they can control you, if they get together on it (like the Consolidationalists did as Republicans).
Beowulf, isn't this what are government is supposed to be? Controled by the human beings that are our citizens? And if a majority of our citizens desire certain rights and privileges, isn't that how we decide issues in this nation with our system of government?
The ordinances clearly dismiss a flip-flopping, knee-jerker like Lincoln and his sectional party as being not worth the trust of anyone. He wasn't worth it. He and his own party split ways in 1864.
Again, the ordinances go on in great length about the one issue they never flipped-flopped on, the issue of slavery. They simply did not believe that the institution would be secure under Lincoln. 'He and his own party split ways in 1864?' Funny, did the man get himself reelected without any help?
I believe they shot him in 1865.
From the grassy knoll, the book depository, or the overpass?
No, I see how they saw Lincoln and his party as absolute anarchists, and even if the South loses the war, and devastation follows, it is better than allowing several million people to amass and dictate policy based on federal abuses such as unchecked abolition and Liberal patronage!
Pure white noise, static, smoke and mirrors based on rhetoric and personal opinion, not one historical fact in the lot.
The country cannot remain half Conservative and half Collectivist; it must all be one thing, or all the other!
Collectivists of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but an objective and truthful view of historical events!
What rights did the South lose under Lincoln? The right to peacefully secede, as they had done under Buchanan.
They lost the trial by combat they chose to initiate, without even a flicker of legal concern or they would have went before the Supreme Court or tried for a Constitutional amendment or a National referendum.
The right to be free of Northern agitation and ideologies!
The right to be free from progress, and to stand still in the present, longing for the past and to be free of the agitation of the concept that all men are created equal!
That was worth going to war over!
Hardly.
It was worthless to bring on the death of over 600,000 fellow human beings, some, who you claim, weren't even citizens, for the purpose of maintaining slavery.
Beowulf
Anyone else want to take a whack at what States rights the states had lost or were afraid of losing during this time?
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
"It was worthless to bring on the death of over 600,000 fellow human beings, some, who you claim, weren't even citizens, for the purpose of maintaining slavery."
Can't nobody argue too much with that, BUT please remember that many were forced into this war just for the mere chance at survival and to attempt to finish the hostilities by standing up to what was perceived as an invading army. That US Army, after all, did cross state lines as well as neighborhoods to fight against their brothers and cousins. Somehow, the US Army got populated by men who lived within those lines, so it could be the lines were their's to cross. It's just that a man from Alabama often saw a New Yorker with a funny accent as a threat. Some still do. The ceasing of slavery was a noble cause for war, just not the only one. [Thousands of those Alabamans fought for the Union as did their cousins in neighboring states. Yes this was confusing as hell. Many thought it was hell, especially those there at the time.]
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Dear Beowulf,
Thank you for responding to my post.
Washington who fought on the battlefield, presided at the Constitutional Convention and was president of the United States is, by your definition, a collectiveist left wing Unionist. Lincoln replied in a 1861 pleas to just let secession happen, that there was "no Washington" in such an idea.
In your post 165, you express concern about "suddenly" ending slavery and releasing all the former slaves and that chaos would ensue. Strangely you point the finger at the small groups of already free blacks was the resentful ones, somehow missing that it was whites that would resent a race they despised becoming their political and social equals.
But its a real concern. Suddenly millions of mostly illiterate, mostly unskilled farmhands, with unfamiliar religion practices are let loose on the countryside. It is a worrying prospect. Yet no one suggested Irish immigrants become slaves(for 200 plus years).
Lincoln never left the Republicans. and he was killed by a resentful Southern sympathizer with a drinking problem and a horror of blacks becoming voters.
Anyone else want to take a whack at what States rights the states had lost or were afraid of losing during this time?
Having wasted years on the politics of secession, that simple question never occurred to me.
One could argue that the greater threat to the sovereignty of the states probably arose during the New Deal and has continued since. We can forgive the centralisation of the CSA under Davis, as the needs of war probably necessiated it. Encroachment in peacetime, on domestic matters, is another debate for another forum.
Returning to the original question - nothing had been passed other than a tarrif but they had been disputed several times before. I think it is the threat of what Mr Lincoln and the Republicans might have done which swung it. It's important to remember the geographical concentration of Lincoln's support in the northern states, and his entry to the White House on a minority popular vote (he had 59% in the Electoral College however). So I guess I'd be interested in attempts by others to answer the question too.
But its a real concern. Suddenly millions of mostly illiterate, mostly unskilled farmhands, with unfamiliar religion practices are let loose on the countryside. It is a worrying prospect. Yet no one suggested Irish immigrants become slaves(for 200 plus years).
Not responding to you specifically, Matthew -- just using the statement to spin off.
When did anyone propose that 4,000,000 slaves be suddenly freed? If Lincoln had the power and the inclination to free the slaves, he wasn't fool enough to just do it like that. Nor was the most radical abolitionist fool enough to expect that the problem could be solved in such a way.
Lincoln would have spent his four, or maybe eight, years in office with nothing more done than advancing a plan for compensated emancipation. But with the four (maybe eight) years of dithering and debating and political posturing, little resembling abolition would have been accomplished.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
