Southern Partisan in the dark

[28TN]

I want to try something new with this thread,I am new here and on my "net loss" thread,I recognized something that has puzzled me my entire life,I really honestly do not understand the unionist attachment to the idea of nation or union above all else? I won't make any counterpoints on this thread,I will only ask questions about things I don't understand.If anybody wants to set a companion csa thread,I will be glad to give honest and complete answers.
Ok, my main question has always been:Why would northern folks want to force southern folks back into a union they wanted no part of? Or maybe why would northern folks want to be in a union with folks that wanted no part in such a union? You union guys,fire away,remember,I will not make comment,only ask maybe additional questions,maybe we will have a better understanding of each other 3 or 4 pages from now.

[bama46]

a companion question might be, why did the former Confederate states have to be readmitted to a union that the federal government claimed they never left?

[Lady Val]

And I will add another question, if I may.

Why before, during and for a long time after the war, did Northerners declare that the South was attempting to destroy the union when it was obvious that certain states merely wished to leave it?! In fact, because those states were for the most part contiguous - certainly that was so in the old South if not certain territories - any such removal from the Union would have caused no internal problems as would have been the case had the states involved been located in other regions, a situation that might have resulted in a Danzig-Polish corridor or East and West Berlin geographical arrangement.

The Union could well have continued quite undamaged by the South's secession UNLESS one wishes to take into consideration that the Southern states provided over 75% of the revenues collected in taxes by the "federal" government and that the vast majority of that revenue was redistributed in the North to various commercial interests (fascism) with very little being returned to the states that provided it.

All wars are economic in their origins and though many in the North had no problem with the secession of the South, those who profited by this particular tax arrangement had a great deal to lose which is why all efforts were made by the federal government and newly elected Abraham Lincoln to prevent the South's secession including the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery in the states in which it presently existed in perpetuity in the Constitution. Indeed, the Amendment - which was written in such a way as to insure that it could not later be revoked - had already begun the process of ratification after several Southern states had seceded in the hopes of preventing the South from going out en masse and perhaps luring already seceded states back into the Union. Obviously, it did not work.

But the charge that the South was attempting to destroy the Union was entirely bogus. It never had any legitimacy at all, yet it was one of the pillars of Northern aggression.

[wilber6150]

One thing you have to realize is that most northern people didn't really care too much about the first southern states that seceded.. It was only after Ft. Sumter was attacked that people were worked up to a fever pitch.. It was more to defend the country then to pull the states back in that they fought the war..At least thats what I have gotten from the diaries I have read.. Most of the recruiting posters said " enlist to defend the Union" not enlist to take back the Southern states.. In my own opinion, most northern people wouldn't really have cared if the slave states left, if it was peaceful, but once the cannons roared they answered their countries call..

On a side note, you can ask yourself about the thousands of Southerners that fought for the Union, Why did they choose a National identity as opposed to a state one..

[ForeverFree]

I'm going to make a few more reasoned comments eventually, but I want to ask a question, which will seem silly.

Question is: if the former CSA states weren't admitted back into the USA, then what would the federal government have done with all the Southerners?

Sent them back to Europe?

After all, they were on the sovereign land of the United States. Something had to be done to accommodate them.

Some countries conduct violent purges of ethnic or regional groups which have been deemed treasonous after a civil war. That could have been a way to solve the problem. But that way was not chosen.

You seem to imply that the answer would be, well just let them have "their states."

But it wasn't their states. The war established that the states were sovereign parts of the United States. Winning the war, and then relinquishing that sovereignty would have been senseless.

It would have been akin to a teenage boy who gets in a fight with his mom and dad; the kid is arrested; and the judge declares that the boy's sentence is that he gets sole ownership of the parent's summer beach house. That just doesn't make sense.

So again, the question is: if the federal government wasn't going to find some way to bring the former citizens of the CSA back into the US; and if they weren't going to cede their sovereign land, for which blood was shed to establish control of, to the former citizens of the CSA; what should they have done?

Sent the Southerners back to Europe?

[ForeverFree]

OK - that previous post is a satirical spin on a serious issue, which man has faced since the dawn of warfare: what should the victors do with the vanquished?

Kill them all? Remove them from contested lands? Take away their rights? What?

In the US, the "problem" was that Southerners were on sovereign US soil. Killing them or removing wasn't an option. Ceding sovereign land wasn't an option.

Bringing back into the country under terms set by the government, terms that were reasonable for dealing with treasonous parties - that was the option they took. One can debate if the terms of re-union were reasonable, or if the re-union was done "properly."

I could mention that, as a united country, as the United States, our combined strength has made us one of the greatest countries in world history. Which more than shows the wisdom of re-union. I don't know if you'd buy that.

But at the end of the day, the answer to your question is pretty mundane, IMO. The Southern states were brought back into the Union because there really weren't any other viable alternatives.

Unless you think being sent to Europe is a viable alternative.

[28TN]

I'm going to make a few more reasoned comments eventually, but I want to ask a question, which will seem silly.

Question is: if the former CSA states weren't admitted back into the USA, then what would the federal government have done with all the Southerners?

Sent them back to Europe?

After all, they were on the sovereign land of the United States. Something had to be done to accommodate them.

Some countries conduct violent purges of ethnic or regional groups which have been deemed treasonous after a civil war. That could have been a way to solve the problem. But that way was not chosen.

You seem to imply that the answer would be, well just let them have "their states."

But it wasn't their states. The war established that the states were sovereign parts of the United States. Winning the war, and then relinquishing that sovereignty would have been senseless.

It would have been akin to a teenage boy who gets in a fight with his mom and dad; the kid is arrested; and the judge declares that the boy's sentence is that he gets sole ownership of the parent's summer beach house. That just doesn't make sense.

So again, the question is: if the federal government wasn't going to find some way to bring the former citizens of the CSA back into the US; and if they weren't going to cede their sovereign land, for which blood was shed to establish control of, to the former citizens of the CSA; what should they have done?

Sent the Southerners back to Europe?

FF, Did the States see the sun rise before any agreement among them?

[28TN]

a companion question might be, why did the former Confederate states have to be readmitted to a union that the federal government claimed they never left?

I don't know?

[28TN]

One thing you have to realize is that most northern people didn't really care too much about the first southern states that seceded.. It was only after Ft. Sumter was attacked that people were worked up to a fever pitch.. It was more to defend the country then to pull the states back in that they fought the war..At least thats what I have gotten from the diaries I have read.. Most of the recruiting posters said " enlist to defend the Union" not enlist to take back the Southern states.. In my own opinion, most northern people wouldn't really have cared if the slave states left, if it was peaceful, but once the cannons roared they answered their countries call..

On a side note, you can ask yourself about the thousands of Southerners that fought for the Union, Why did they choose a National identity as opposed to a state one..

Who's country?who owned the States? it's citizens who settled it? was it always the property of the federal govt.?was it still? any deed? honestly.

[ForeverFree]

One other thing on this subject.

I hate to keeping playing the slave card, but it’s not like everyone in the South was uniformly unhappy with the Union vitory. The freedmen were very happy to be a part of the United States.

Indeed, the protection of the federal government was vital to the slaves. Once the federal forces left after the election of Rutherford Hayes, the left were basically hung out to dry, and suffered horribly under the Redemption and Jim Crow. But the federal government was vital in addressing segregation during the Civil Rights movement; without federal intervention, blacks might be sitting in the back of the bus even now.

[ForeverFree]

FF, Did the States see the sun rise before any agreement among them?

You got me there, 28T - I don't really know what the question is that you're asking.

[Baggage Handler #2]

...
Ok, my main question has always been: Why would northern folks want to force southern folks back into a union they wanted no part of? ...

First, all the union guys and all the southern guys have been dead for at least 50 years. At this point we all are merely Americans (or English, Polish, Czech, New Zealander, etc. each according to his/her passport).

You raise an interesting point, as secession, I think, was never about the importance of the individual as much as it was about the importance of regional governments. Had the secessionist movement been truly democratic, it must needs have been relentlessly abolitionist, and it wasn't.

Instead the principles behind secession (as I am growing to see them) posited that political power vested in a comparative few was a more capable engine for doing good than a more truly democratic one.

And that's where it gets interesting. In your question you ask about forcing in southerners who had wanted to be out. Ironically, the U.S. government admitted the people back in as members of their states and commonwealths (mustn't forget old Virginia). Notably, some people chose not to participate in this, and were therefore not represented after the war as a consequence. A sort of citizenship limbo, I suppose.

Why the existing state lines were preserved, I do not know, but suspect it was done for expediency as much as anything.

I hope this helps.

[28TN]

You got me there, 28T - I don't really know what the question is that you're asking.

Did the States create the constitution,with each ones understanding of the compact?

[wilber6150]

Who's country?

So if its in the political interest of a few its OK to say what was once their national identity no longer exists.. In that logic counties of the state can then freely say they are no longer part of the state, and hey why stop there.. Towns and cities that don't like the way a state government is run can just up and say sorry we aren't part of the state anymore..
Have you studied the secession of your own state, it certainly wasn't clear cut and without controversy.. Where are the rights of the citizens of those seceded states that wanted to stay within the Union..Do these people not have a right to be a part of the country they were born in.. Thousands of men from the South fought for their Country, the one they were born in and loved..
They weren't going sit by the wayside and let the slave owning cartel rip apart their country without a fight..

[28TN]

First, all the union guys and all the southern guys have been dead for at least 50 years. At this point we all are merely Americans (or English, Polish, Czech, New Zealander, etc. each according to his/her passport).

You raise an interesting point, as secession, I think, was never about the importance of the individual as much as it was about the importance of regional governments. Had the secessionist movement been truly democratic, it must needs have been relentlessly abolitionist, and it wasn't.

Instead the principles behind secession (as I am growing to see them) posited that political power vested in a comparative few was a more capable engine for doing good than a more truly democratic one.

And that's where it gets interesting. In your question you ask about forcing in southerners who had wanted to be out. Ironically, the U.S. government admitted the people back in as members of their states and commonwealths (mustn't forget old Virginia). Notably, some people chose not to participate in this, and were therefore not represented after the war as a consequence. A sort of citizenship limbo, I suppose.

Why the existing state lines were preserved, I do not know, but suspect it was done for expediency as much as anything.

I hope this helps.

Yes,Thanks for giving your viewpoint,please expand on it as this moves on.

[wilber6150]

You union guys,fire away,remember,I will not make comment,only ask maybe additional questions,maybe we will have a better understanding of each other 3 or 4 pages from now.

Hmmm guess you couldn't resist

[wilber6150]

Sorry couldn't resist... You certainly have livened up the forum... Welcome aboard..

[28TN]

So if its in the political interest of a few its OK to say what was once their national identity no longer exists.. In that logic counties of the state can then freely say they are no longer part of the state, and hey why stop there.. Towns and cities that don't like the way a state government is run can just up and say sorry we aren't part of the state anymore..
Have you studied the secession of your own state, it certainly wasn't clear cut and without controversy.. Where are the rights of the citizens of those seceded states that wanted to stay within the Union..Do these people not have a right to be a part of the country they were born in.. Thousands of men from the South fought for their Country, the one they were born in and loved..
They weren't going sit by the wayside and let the slave owning cartel rip apart their country without a fight..

6150, What would East Tennessee do then with the secess of Sullivan and Polk Counties? What of the big secess population in the rest of the E.T. Counties?

[28TN]

Sorry couldn't resist... You certainly have livened up the forum... Welcome aboard..

Thank you, Sir,At your service. I have many questions unanswered.

[28TN]

At this point we all are merely Americans

Were we not all,after 76,always Americans?

[Dred]

Lady Val...

OF course it would destroy the union. Do you think the secession of a large part of the country would go without consequences? And I'm not talking economic. What about long term implications? If they are aloud to leave in 1860, then how much longer before some other state decides its not happy over... whatever, and decides to leave with the precedent already set? Then why should any state stay? The actual Loss of the states may not have destroyed the union, but the implications would have resounded until there was no union left. The remaining states left floundering on their own would not last long in a global economy once mass transportation was introduced , and probably would have been scooped up piecemeal by any number of foreign countries - until the American continent resembled something akin to Europe- before the 20th century.

[ForeverFree]

Did the States create the constitution,with each ones understanding of the compact?

28T, you[re being too inscrutable for me.

Let's say the answer to the question is yes. How does that relate to the point I made earlier?

[brass napoleon]

I'm going to try this one more time. It wasn't the issue of secession, it was how it was attempted. An election didn't go their way, so the legislatures of the Deep South pulled their representatives out of Congress, issued inflammatory ordinances of secession that talked about "hatred" and "war", and seized the Federal forts.

If instead (saying this again, one more time), the Southern legislatures had kept their representatives in Congress and worked towards a Constitutional Amendment that clearly legalized secession and stated in clear terms how it would be accomplished, I truly believe most Northerners would have gone along with it. Most Northerners did not want to subjugate (although a few did). Most Northerners did not want war (although a few did). In fact I believe by 1860 many Northerners would have been thrilled to see the Southern states go and take their peculiar institution with them.

There was no widespread desire for war in the North until Fort Sumter was fired on. And there was no reason on Earth why Fort Sumter should have been fired on.

[Freddy]

First, the 11 Confederate states never left the Union. See Texas v. White 1869. Their representatives had to be readmitted to gain their seats in Congress, but the 11 states never left the Union, therefore the states were required to write new constitutions and ratify the 14th & 15th Amendments.

Chap. XXXIX - An Act to admit the State of Texas to Representation in the Congress of the United States. March 30, 1870


"Whereas the people of Texas have framed and adopted a constitution of State government which is republican; and whereas the legislature of Texas elected under said constitution has ratified the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States; and whereas the performance of these several acts in good faith is a condition precedent to the representation of the State in Congress: Therefore,
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the said State of Texas is entitled to representation in the Congress of the United States: Provided, That before any member of the legislature of said State shall take or resume his seat, or any officer of said State shall enter upon the duties of his office he shall take and subscribe and file in the office of the secretary of State of Texas, for permanent preservation, an oath or affirmation in the form following: "I, ____ ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, and afterward engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, so help me God"; or under the pains and penalties of perjury (as the case may be); or such person shall, in like manner, take, subscribe. and file the following oath or affirmation: "I, ____ ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have, by act of Congress of the United States, been relieved from the disabilities imposed upon me by the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, so help me God"; or under the pains and penalties of perjury (as the case may be); which oaths or affirmations shall be taken before, and certified by, any officer lawfully authorized to administer oaths.
And any person who shall knowingly swear or affirm falsely in taking either of such oaths or affirmations, shall be deemed guilty of perjury, and shall be punished therefor by imprisonment not less than one year, and not more than ten years, and shall be fined not less than one thousand dollars, and not more than ten thousand dollars.
And in all trials for any violation of this act, the certificate of the taking of either of said oaths or affirmations, with proof of the signature of the party accused shall be taken and held as conclusive evidence that such oath or affirmation was regularly and lawfully administered by competent authority:
And provided further, That every such person who shall neglect for the period of thirty days next after the passage of this act to take, subscribe, and file such oath or affirmation as aforesaid, shall be deemed and taken to all intents and purposes to have vacated his office:
And provided further, That the State of Texas is admitted to representation in Congress as one of the States of the Union upon the following fundamental conditions:

First. That the constitution of Texas shall never be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United States of the right to vote who are entitled to vote by the constitution herein recognized, except as punishment for such crimes as are now felonies at common law, whereof they shall have been duly convicted under laws equally applicable to all the inhabitants of said State: Provided, That any alteration of said constitution, prospective in its effects, may be made in regard to the time and place of residence of voters.

Second. That it shall never be lawful for the said State to deprive any citizen of the United States on account of his race, color, or previous condition of servitude, of the right to hold office under the constitution and laws of said State, or upon any such ground to require of him any other qualifications for office than such as are required of all other citizens.

Third. That the constitution of Texas shall never be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United States of the school rights and privileges secured by the constitution of said State.
Approved March 30, 1870"



Second, nowhere in the US Constitution does it describe itself as a "compact". If Madison believed that then he should have had the word written into the document. The Constitution describes itself as a "Union" nine times.

[wilber6150]

6150, What would East Tennessee do then with the secess of Sullivan and Polk Counties? What of the big secess population in the rest of the E.T. Counties?

Exactly the point, where does it end.. If the states that make up the Union have the right to break away and make their own nation, what's stopping counties from breaking away and forming their own state.. i.e West Virginia.. Its a slippery road that thanks to the blood shed by brave men and women the country was stopped from traveling..