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'd imagine the southern politicians didn't actually believe that after the decades of wars,treaties,Indian removal,manifest destiny to expand the country that they would be allowed to leave without a fight? If Polk could find a reason to annex Texas then war with the southern states/Confederacy had to have been inevitable if Lincoln is elected right? The general population of the United States would never allow that.
Irregardless of politics involved wouldn't of secession for any reason have lead to immediate conflict?
Irregardless of politics involved wouldn't of secession for any reason have lead to immediate conflict?
Depending on your definition of "immediate," it did.
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'd imagine the southern politicians didn't actually believe that after the decades of wars,treaties,Indian removal,manifest destiny to expand the country that they would be allowed to leave without a fight? If Polk could find a reason to annex Texas then war with the southern states/Confederacy had to have been inevitable if Lincoln is elected right? The general population of the United States would never allow that.
Irregardless of politics involved wouldn't of secession for any reason have lead to immediate conflict?
No.
Only this new party could have caused the ruckus which both led to the Secession, AND the resultant effusion of blood to effect its ends.
The Republican party would have been sent to oblivion had Lincoln not provoked and invaded, you may rely upon that. Their election to office would have soon been seen for what it was; the cause of the Secession. The blame had to be passed directly to the South before
Buchanan's cologne had finally cleared the hallway...
They had worked too hard, and had failed twice before in history, and were not about to let the South 'go' for a myriad of reasons, and all of them political....
...and along with their desire to consolidate government with a majority from any quarters, even terrorists.
It took Lincoln only 39 days from his inaugural speech to make the South seem as if they 'themselves' were 'being the aggressors'... in attempting to stop the invasion at Sumter.
No. We are told that would have been the case, but it is not true. Only because of this political party did Jefferson Davis fear it would lead where it did.
To an invasion, "with a malignant ferocity, and utter contempt of the usages of civilization, entirely unequalled in history."
Yes, it did. Reading an actual history book concerning the Civil War will only confirm that secession, unilateral secession, brought about the Civil War. Sorry, this one is a keeper.
Only this new party could have caused the ruckus which both led to the Secession, AND the resultant effusion of blood to effect its ends.
Hogwash.
If one actually reads history instead of propaganda, one would see that the leaders of the secession movement were the ones that constantly agitated for some sort of aggression or war-like action, even before the formation of the Republican party.
The Republican party would have been sent to oblivion had Lincoln not provoked and invaded, you may rely upon that. Their election to office would have soon been seen for what it was; the cause of the Secession. The blame had to be passed directly to the South before
Buchanan's cologne had finally cleared the hallway...
There may be a bit of truth in all the smoke above. If the leadership of the South had not provoked the North in firing on Ft. Sumter, by stealing the nation's property, by taking and holding of federal troops in the performance of their sworn duty, the Lincoln administration would have been hard pressed to declare any kind of emergency. In fact, it is highly likely Lincoln and the Republican party would have had one four year term of office and then been out the door in '64. The election of Lincoln and the Republican party was MADE the cause of secession, slavery was the reason for it.
They had worked too hard, and had failed twice before in history, and were not about to let the South 'go' for a myriad of reasons, and all of them political....
Reverse the above and state, "along with illegal actions concerning defiance of the results of a legal, national election, theft, treason, rebellion, and the actual instituting of violence by firing on a federal installation, all done at the bidding of Southern fire-eaters. These Southern fire-eaters had worked too hard, and had failed before in history to divide the nation and go their own way, all in defense of slavery.
...and along with their desire to consolidate government with a majority from any quarters, even terrorists.
"Desire to consolidate the government." What does that mean? I see it so many times and still do not know what the people who say it mean? Consolidate a government that most people never saw, never had any effect on except for a post office. Consolidate a government that had about 16,000 soldiers for a country of over 33 million, had a handful of federal marshals and a part-time attorney general?
Oh, and a nice touch by throwing in the modern, 21st century word "terrorists." Never mind that most of the antebellum activity that involved violence concerned the institution of slavery and never mind that in almost every case, the federal government suppressed that violence, from Kansas to John Brown. Please.....
It took Lincoln only 39 days from his inaugural speech to make the South seem as if they 'themselves' were 'being the aggressors'... in attempting to stop the invasion at Sumter.
The "invasion at Sumter?"
As for Lincoln taking only 39 days from his inaugural speech to make the South the "aggressors" one would have only the Southern leadership to thank for taking that prize. Why not bring up all the actions of the South in seizing forts, arsenals, mints, ships, court houses, custom houses, etc., BEFORE Lincoln ever left Springfield, IL? Face historical fact, the South were themselves the aggressors.
No. We are told that would have been the case, but it is not true. Only because of this political party did Jefferson Davis fear it would lead where it did.
That it had participated in a free and fair election and it's candidate had been elected?
To an invasion, "with a malignant ferocity, and utter contempt of the usages of civilization, entirely unequalled in history."
Utter and complete claptrap, and I am being VERY generous here with the word "claptrap."
No.
Still "Yes" as again, those pesky history books still confirm.
Beowulf
It is an utter shame that your use of history (and again, I am being VERY generous here with the word "history.") must be so selective and so mangled as to present such a fractured view as to how the war came about.
It is my firm hope that most folks here know enough to actually research and read for themselves the events leading up to the war.
I know from long experience that many on such boards as this, tend to pick sides or support a certain viewpoint of the war. I really have no problem with this.
My problem has always been those who are willing to project a modern-day adgenda through the distortion or ignoring of actual, historical events.
But then I realize historical fact tends to remain, eternal and unchanging, and those who wish to twist it into something it was not, move on, leaving the history to remain. The facts are there if one is willing to learn them.
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
Only this new party could have caused the ruckus which both led to the Secession, AND the resultant effusion of blood to effect its ends. Beowulf
Hell, some in the slave south had been threatening secession/rebellion as least as early as 1820 when they allowed as how the Missouri Compromise barring slavery above 36-30 was a threat/insult to slavery.
"The survival of slavery and the South required decisive action. In January 1860, Mississippi Senator Albert G. Brown submitted resolutions charging the Senate with the duty of passing laws protecting and promoting slavery in a territory if a territorial legislature failed to enact its own sufficiently strong proslavery laws. In February 1860, Senator Jefferson Davis followed up with a set of resolutions stating that neither Congress nor a territorial legislature could ban slavery from a territory, and that if "judiciary and executive authority" or "the territorial government shall fail or refuse to provide" protection for the "Constitutional Rights" of slaveholders to bring and keep slaves in a territory, "it will be the duty of Congress to supply such a deficiency." In short, white southern leaders were demanding an expanded role for the federal government in promoting slavery. Such demands provided a platform for southern Democrats when the Democratic Party met for its 1860 convention. Southern Democrats insisted on some version of a federal slave code white northern Democrats espoused popular sovereignty. The party split virtually assured the victory of a Republican candidate in the 1860 election."
From the book, What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, And The Civil War, (Introduction, pg. 18) by Chandra Manning.
So much for the Jeffersonian ideal.
Here we have legislated attempts to force the federal government into an expanded role, a "consolidation of power", if you will, depriving the citizens of the States and settlers of the territories, of their choice on the biggest issue of the day, slavery.
And who strove to increase the power of the federal government and to deny the concept of States Rights?
One only has to read actual history.
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
And who strove to increase the power of the federal government and to deny the concept of States Rights?
Well, to be fair, we are discussing territories here. Congress does have the power to regulate the Territories. I think it really underscores Southern efforts to maintain balance in the Senate.
There had been a case of secession, where the portion of Alexandria which had been donated to create the 10 block square of the proposed city of Washington,e.g. seat of government --
When the citizens who lived there, that also involved the Lee-Custis Mansion known as Arlington; in Virginia-- petitioned the US Government to separate from the 10 mile square city of Washington; which was known as Alexandria County. It was allowed to separate in peaceful terms from Washington City (DC) and rejoin the Commonwealth of Virginia. It would be called Arlington or Arlington Heights during the Civil War but, did not get named Arlington County until the early quarter of the 1900's.
Everything was done peacefully in the courts between Alexandria delegates and those in Washington; to include the courts. Even records were peacefully transfered.
Although it was small scale; it did set a legal standard--to which, the courts could have used as to have a peaceful secession on a state level; using a munciple standard that worked in the courts on a Federal level.
This venue was never allowed to have a chance. Those in position to divert the whole process into 'the ditch' had many people seeded in President Buchanan's administration as well as eager to make more 'drama' than common sense.
As we know from official records for both Confederate and Union forces; most politicians thought it would be no more than a 90 day affair. It lasted four years.
Had they gone through the courts--first--might have been without blood and same results in less time.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
By many past examples of the United State's politics; all one has to do is wait for the next election to reverse the previous politics.
Again--impatience on the part of those who identified and joined the Confederate efforts to secession.
I personally feel that those who stirred up trouble, were the ones who couldn't fight themselves out of a wet paper bag. Those who tried reason were forced by duty, honor and loyalty to their state/commonwealth; into the Civil War.
Just looking at all the politicians before the Civil War, who were Generals and see how many returned to politics; is striking. Perhaps they learned that politics is not always a 'clean' profession. And, looking at non political vocations by Generals, who took up politics after the war was also interesting--perhaps wanting to make a difference and to insure there would be no bloody price due to impatient politics.
Talk of war is cheap --it is the people who pay the debt, the intrest with little dividends.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
If a peaceful dissolution of the Federal government is at all possible then why even have a United States in the first place? why even bother to compromise over any issue if one could just create two separate sovereign powers?
Also like I said earlier with the history of our countries expansion wouldn't a Confederate/American War be simply inevitable over who would dominant North America? I'm also thinking of what the situation would be like for the next great wave of immigration between 1890 to 1920.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Secession equal war? 
The "invasion at Sumter?"
Linear Mode
