Common Misconceptions/Myths

[leftyhunter]

So the real estate was returned a year later, with their homes, barns, outbuildings, livestock, crops, and possessions that could not be carried on their backs burnt to the ground. Sounds like a minor inconvenience.

No one from the burnt district shed any tears about the Lawrence Massacre . The Kanas troops didn't shoot every man and boy over 13 that they encountered so what's the big deal?
Leftyhunter

The idea of the Union dissolving and Civil War breaking out was discussed and debated in the Virginia legislature decades before the war. One of a number of major arguments in favor of slavery abolition in the VA legislature was that one day the Union would dissolve and the North would use their slaves to conquer and dominate them.

View attachment 389681

Thomas Jefferson Randolph: text from the abolition debate of 1831

Randolph was right because in 1775 Major Dunsmore of the British Army did exactly that by arming slaves and giving freedom and substance to the former slaves and their families if they joined the British Army. During the War of 1812 the Royal Marines had the " Colonial Marines" mentioned in the original Star Spangled Banner.
Lincoln just did the third and final act in a long drama.
Leftyhunter

That's like telling someone in Salem, MA circa 1692 that "so, during church service Sunday, guess whose name came up? Yours!"

Instead of a "temporary inconvenience", I would offer that " a devastating, life altering and shattering, signal event that could well lead to not only financial devastation and bankruptcy, but even sickness and death for the weak, the very old, and the very young", would be a more appropriate description.

Welcome to the wonderful world of counterinsurgency. Confedrate troops did the same and more to Unionists including torturing woman to find the where's of " mossbacks" men who fled to the country to escape Confedrate military service.
Lef

 

[leftyhunter]

So the real estate was returned a year later, with their homes, barns, outbuildings, livestock, crops, and possessions that could not be carried on their backs burnt to the ground. Sounds like a minor inconvenience.

No one from the burnt district shed any tears about the Lawrence Massacre . The Kanas troops didn't shoot every man and boy over 13 that they encountered so what's the big deal?
Leftyhunter

The idea of the Union dissolving and Civil War breaking out was discussed and debated in the Virginia legislature decades before the war. One of a number of major arguments in favor of slavery abolition in the VA legislature was that one day the Union would dissolve and the North would use their slaves to conquer and dominate them.

View attachment 389681

Thomas Jefferson Randolph: text from the abolition debate of 1831

Randolph was right because in 1775 Major Dunsmore of the British Army did exactly that by arming slaves and giving freedom and substance to the former slaves and their families if they joined the British Army. During the War of 1812 the Royal Marines had the " Colonial Marines" mentioned in the original Star Spangled Banner.
Lincoln just did the third and final act in a long drama.
Leftyhunter

That's like telling someone in Salem, MA circa 1692 that "so, during church service Sunday, guess whose name came up? Yours!"

Instead of a "temporary inconvenience", I would offer that " a devastating, life altering and shattering, signal event that could well lead to not only financial devastation and bankruptcy, but even sickness and death for the weak, the very old, and the very young", would be a more appropriate description.

Welcome to the wonderful world of counterinsurgency. Confedrate troops did the same and more to Unionists including torturing woman to find the where's of " mossbacks" men who fled to the country to escape Confedrate military service.
Lef

Here is a good History Book. Lincoln's Enancipation Proclamation by Allen c Guelzo. pp225-226

View attachment 389677

View attachment 389678

What's wrong with Lincoln arming ex slaves so they can free their race? What's wrong with allowing oppressed men to regain their manhood and get revenge on their tormentors?
Leftyhunter

 

[NedBaldwin]

... NC, TN, AR and VA clearly though Slavery was better protected in the Union.

Not necessarily. For example VA clearly expected a compromise deal to emerge and when that didnt happen clearly thought it was better to leave the Union.

DE, MD, KY and MO rejected emancipation late in the War. They didn't want to be coerced into emancipation and the Federal Government didn't have Constitutional Power to do so.

MD ended slavery by Constitutional Amendment in 1864
MO did it in January 1865 by law

 

[uaskme]

Not necessarily. For example VA clearly expected a compromise deal to emerge and when that didnt happen clearly thought it was better to leave the Union.

MD ended slavery by Constitutional Amendment in 1864
MO did it in January 1865 by law

64-65 was late in the War. DE didn't have but 1800 Slaves and rejected Lincoln's paid for Emancipation Plan. So it wasn't all about Slavery.

VA, NC, TN and AR left when Lincoln called up Troops and decided to Coerce the Cotton States to stay in the Union. War had begun and these states chose a side.

Thanks for agreeing with me

 

[CowCavalry]

No because there property was returned within a year. A temporary inconvenience is not taking away someone's property.
Leftyhunter

A temporary inconvenience is not being able to use your kitchen for a week due to a water leak and ruined cabinets, or having to evacuate for 3-4 days due to an approaching storm, or having lost power for a few days due to same, or having to use fans due to your AC quitting on you in summer. Being forcibly removed from your homestead and having it then looted and burnt to the ground does not qualify, sorry.

 

[CowCavalry]

No one from the burnt district shed any tears about the Lawrence Massacre . The Kanas troops didn't shoot every man and boy over 13 that they encountered so what's the big deal?
Leftyhunter

How do you know no one shed a tear? So paint them all with the same brush and burn them all out. Meeting one war crime with another.

 

[unionblue]

Here is a good History Book. Lincoln's Enancipation Proclamation by Allen c Guelzo. pp225-226

View attachment 389677

View attachment 389678

I like Guelzo and have read some of his works, both online and in print.

I notice he uses the words, "no one may have been more surprised than Lincoln," or "that there is a least some evidence," and we see he simply didn't object to an item being printed in the paper.

As for his (Lincoln's) encouragement to raise a black legion, seems a bit smaller effort than an all-out race war. I do see him wanting slaves to participate in gaining their own freedom but not an all-out race war that you seem to suggest is somewhere between the lines of Guezlo's book.

And then there is this passage from the Emancipation Proclamation:

"...And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I recommend to them that in all cases when allowed they labor faithfully for reasonable wages..."

Race war? No. Fight for their freedom? Yes.

Unionblue

 

[leftyhunter]

So the real estate was returned a year later, with their homes, barns, outbuildings, livestock, crops, and possessions that could not be carried on their backs burnt to the ground. Sounds like a minor inconvenience.

No one from the burnt district shed any tears about the Lawrence Massacre . The Kanas troops didn't shoot every man and boy over 13 that they encountered so what's the big deal?
Leftyhunter

The idea of the Union dissolving and Civil War breaking out was discussed and debated in the Virginia legislature decades before the war. One of a number of major arguments in favor of slavery abolition in the VA legislature was that one day the Union would dissolve and the North would use their slaves to conquer and dominate them.

View attachment 389681

Thomas Jefferson Randolph: text from the abolition debate of 1831

Randolph was right because in 1775 Major Dunsmore of the British Army did exactly that by arming slaves and giving freedom and substance to the former slaves and their families if they joined the British Army. During the War of 1812 the Royal Marines had the " Colonial Marines" mentioned in the original Star Spangled Banner.
Lincoln just did the third and final act in a long drama.
Leftyhunter

That's like telling someone in Salem, MA circa 1692 that "so, during church service Sunday, guess whose name came up? Yours!"

Instead of a "temporary inconvenience", I would offer that " a devastating, life altering and shattering, signal event that could well lead to not only financial devastation and bankruptcy, but even sickness and death for the weak, the very old, and the very young", would be a more appropriate description.

Welcome to the wonderful world of counterinsurgency. Confedrate troops did the same and more to Unionists including torturing woman to find the where's of " mossbacks" men who fled to the country to escape Confedrate military service.
Lef

Here is a good History Book. Lincoln's Enancipation Proclamation by Allen c Guelzo. pp225-226

View attachment 389677

View attachment 389678

What's wrong with Lincoln arming ex slaves so they can free their race? What's wrong with allowing oppressed men to regain their manhood and get revenge on their

How do you know no one shed a tear? So paint them all with the same brush and burn them all out. Meeting one war crime with another.

Welcome to the woundeful world of counterinsurgency.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

So the real estate was returned a year later, with their homes, barns, outbuildings, livestock, crops, and possessions that could not be carried on their backs burnt to the ground. Sounds like a minor inconvenience.

No one from the burnt district shed any tears about the Lawrence Massacre . The Kanas troops didn't shoot every man and boy over 13 that they encountered so what's the big deal?
Leftyhunter

The idea of the Union dissolving and Civil War breaking out was discussed and debated in the Virginia legislature decades before the war. One of a number of major arguments in favor of slavery abolition in the VA legislature was that one day the Union would dissolve and the North would use their slaves to conquer and dominate them.

View attachment 389681

Thomas Jefferson Randolph: text from the abolition debate of 1831

Randolph was right because in 1775 Major Dunsmore of the British Army did exactly that by arming slaves and giving freedom and substance to the former slaves and their families if they joined the British Army. During the War of 1812 the Royal Marines had the " Colonial Marines" mentioned in the original Star Spangled Banner.
Lincoln just did the third and final act in a long drama.
Leftyhunter

That's like telling someone in Salem, MA circa 1692 that "so, during church service Sunday, guess whose name came up? Yours!"

Instead of a "temporary inconvenience", I would offer that " a devastating, life altering and shattering, signal event that could well lead to not only financial devastation and bankruptcy, but even sickness and death for the weak, the very old, and the very young", would be a more appropriate description.

Welcome to the wonderful world of counterinsurgency. Confedrate troops did the same and more to Unionists including torturing woman to find the where's of " mossbacks" men who fled to the country to escape Confedrate military service.
Lef

Here is a good History Book. Lincoln's Enancipation Proclamation by Allen c Guelzo. pp225-226

View attachment 389677

View attachment 389678

What's wrong with Lincoln arming ex slaves so they can free their race? What's wrong with allowing oppressed men to regain their manhood and get revenge on their

How do you know no one shed a tear? So paint them all with the same brush and burn them all out. Meeting one war crime with another.

Welcome to the woundeful world of counterinsurgency.

A temporary inconvenience is not being able to use your kitchen for a week due to a water leak and ruined cabinets, or having to evacuate for 3-4 days due to an approaching storm, or having lost power for a few days due to same, or having to use fans due to your AC quitting on you in summer. Being forcibly removed from your homestead and having it then looted and burnt to the ground does not qualify, sorry.

Name me one counterinsurgency conflict where homes aren't burned?
Leftyhunter

 

[Piedone]

I understand what you're saying, but your talking about perception. I provided an actual definition of revolution, show me an actual definition of revolution that specifies a positive achievement. Not saying there isn't one, sources can certainly vary, just saying I haven't seen one, and it's certainly doesn't appear to be representative of the term. I have seen a unique description of insurrection vs. rebellion vs. revolution in a contemporary NY Times article on the ACW that does not follow what I've stated, that appears to focus on the extent of the action/event, but it is an outlier. I've found no secondary support for it. Opinions can vary, but there has to be a frame of reference. That frame specifies that both revolution and rebellion apply to unlawful action. Such are the actual definitions of both. This is why TX v. White distinguishes between consent (lawful) and revolution (unlawful). This is why Madison distinguished between consent (legal), ultra-constitutional (illegal), and a struggle against an intolerable abuse of power (also illegal, but morally justified, a la the American Revolution). This is why the Founding Fathers, who recognized their actions were illegal, called their struggle a revolution. This is why their justification is considered the moral right to revolution for just cause.

As I see it, Saphroneth is identifying both rebellion and revolution with a complete overthrow. And unless I'm wrong (by no means impossible or even unlikely), by your statement, you seem to consider the distinction between the two as an actual, true revolution being a successful rebellion, i.s. being an actual, successful overthrow of government.

However, I'm not sure what you mean by complete: successful vs. unsuccessful, or the new system being radically different from the former? To my knowledge, the former is and the latter is not within the actual definition of revolution. And the former is objective whereas the latter is subjective. Would the CSA vs USA have been a significant enough change?

I have to excuse my tardy reply but I somehow didn't find enough time to appreciate your excellent postings as they do deserve.
Regarding the term "revolution" I must admit that it gets the more complicated the more one tries to get a definite grasp of it's meaning (like most often in arts a lot of people tend to shape and bend a term to fit their special interest).
I would tend to follow Saphroneth's approach and understand revolution as process which overturns an existing system (in all matters eg. mathematical theory, politics, economy) thoroughly.
I'd even dismiss the factor of success (as a failed revolution too can produce a new way of thinking and spread it and thus lead to the eventual demise of a traditional system - as happened in the aftermath of 1848).
Regarding the morale right to make a revolution - well, that is a highly subjective category I am loath to use - especially regarding former ages where it would be hard to come to an universal conclusion what morale laws were effectively valid in those ages.

The problem I addressed was the common use of "rebellion" as a pejorative term - which I do not feel it is. It just depicts a movement of resistance against any existing government, regardless of eventual morality, justification or revolutionary character of that movement.

To be sure I would find it hard to find anything revolutionary in the secession movement - they rather tried to stop (or secede from) a evolution in the US they perceived as revolutionary by themselves and to keep up a status quo (at least in southern society).

I don't know if this could be of any interest to you (or to anyone), it's admittedly mere academic bla bla without much of a practical relevance.

Much more interesting I deem the point you addressed: the motivation of the US to wage war which I'd like to start a thread about.

 

[uaskme]

I like Guelzo and have read some of his works, both online and in print.

I notice he uses the words, "no one may have been more surprised than Lincoln," or "that there is a least some evidence," and we see he simply didn't object to an item being printed in the paper.

As for his (Lincoln's) encouragement to raise a black legion, seems a bit smaller effort than an all-out race war. I do see him wanting slaves to participate in gaining their own freedom but not an all-out race war that you seem to suggest is somewhere between the lines of Guezlo's book.

And then there is this passage from the Emancipation Proclamation:

"...And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I recommend to them that in all cases when allowed they labor faithfully for reasonable wages..."

Race war? No. Fight for their freedom? Yes.

Unionblue

A fight Lincoln didn't want Blacks to have in the Occupied Territories. One Reason he Exempted the Unionist Slave States. Two different things, why the Blacks Fought and why the the Whites let them.

As we can see, Blacks had NO reason to fight for the Racist Northern Whites. pp 227 of Guelzi's book.

 

[unionblue]

A fight Lincoln didn't want Blacks to have in the Occupied Territories. One Reason he Exempted the Unionist Slave States. Two different things, why the Blacks Fought and why the the Whites let them.

As we can see, Blacks had NO reason to fight for the Racist Northern Whites. pp 227 of Guelzi's book. View attachment 389944

The page you give above has an entirely different meaning for me and I am sure others who read it will come to the same conclusion.

Reading the entire book in context would seem to be in order, although even these carefully selected portions don't always support the view you espouse they do.

I'll check it out at a library when I get the chance.

Until that time,
Unionblue

 

[Copperhead-mi]

A fight Lincoln didn't want Blacks to have in the Occupied Territories. One Reason he Exempted the Unionist Slave States. Two different things, why the Blacks Fought and why the the Whites let them.

As we can see, Blacks had NO reason to fight for the Racist Northern Whites. pp 227 of Guelzi's book. View attachment 389944

Obviously the London Times and other nay-sayers were wrong.
To continue where you left off:
"But sound and fury were not Lincoln's style, and whatever his personal uncertainties about the legal standing of the Proclamation after the war, no one below the Mason-Dixon Line had any doubts about its efficacy. In time, it would become clear even to the nay-sayers that the Proclamation closed and locked the door on any possibility that slavery could be tiptoed around, or that the war could be fought as though slavery had nothing to do with it. In practical terms alone, Lincoln explained in 1864, trying to adopt 'a different policy in regard to the colored man, deprives us of his help, and this is more than we can bear. . . . Throw it away, and the Union goes with it.' But it was also a matter of principle with Lincoln. It was bad faith of the worst imaginable sort to 'retain the service of these people with the express or implied understanding that upon the first convenient occasion, they are to be re-inslaved. It can not be,' and what was more important, 'it ought not to be.' But if, by some incredible circumstance, Congress did agree to negotiate an end to the war by backtracking on the Proclamation, they would have to do so without him as President. To abandon the Proclamation, he told Congress in his annual message in December 1863, 'would be not only to relinquish a lever of power, but would also be a cruel and an astounding breach of faith. I may add at this point, that while I remain in my present position I shall not attempt to retract or modify the emancipation proclamation; nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of that proclamation, or by any of the acts of Congress.' He repeated that promise a year later, adding for sharper effect, 'If the people should, by whatever mode or means, make it an Executive duty to re-enslave such persons, another, and not I, must be their instrument to perform it.' Emancipation was now securely wedged into the war's equation as a sine qua non of victory."

"This was not just bluff. Slave runaways from the Confederacy now had a legal claim on freedom and could not be arrested as fugitives or interned as contrabands; every rebel county, every rebel city, and every rebel state the Union armies overran became free territory for at least the duration of the war; prosecutions for violations of the Proclamation went forward in at least two documented cases while the war was in progress. 'I hold that this Proclamation did, in law, free every slave in all the region it covered,' declared Charles Drake, the antislavery Missouri Radical, and 'on the very day it was issued.' No one should 'for a moment imagine that the Emancipation Proclamation had no force in law,' warned the abolitionist Robert Dale Owen. 'By that instrument three millions of slaves were legally set free.'"
Guelzo, pp. 227-228

 

[unionblue]

Obviously the London Times and other nay-sayers were wrong.
To continue where you left off:
"But sound and fury were not Lincoln's style, and whatever his personal uncertainties about the legal standing of the Proclamation after the war, no one below the Mason-Dixon Line had any doubts about its efficacy. In time, it would become clear even to the nay-sayers that the Proclamation closed and locked the door on any possibility that slavery could be tiptoed around, or that the war could be fought as though slavery had nothing to do with it. In practical terms alone, Lincoln explained in 1864, trying to adopt 'a different policy in regard to the colored man, deprives us of his help, and this is more than we can bear. . . . Throw it away, and the Union goes with it.' But it was also a matter of principle with Lincoln. It was bad faith of the worst imaginable sort to 'retain the service of these people with the express or implied understanding that upon the first convenient occasion, they are to be re-inslaved. It can not be,' and what was more important, 'it ought not to be.' But if, by some incredible circumstance, Congress did agree to negotiate an end to the war by backtracking on the Proclamation, they would have to do so without him as President. To abandon the Proclamation, he told Congress in his annual message in December 1863, 'would be not only to relinquish a lever of power, but would also be a cruel and an astounding breach of faith. I may add at this point, that while I remain in my present position I shall not attempt to retract or modify the emancipation proclamation; nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of that proclamation, or by any of the acts of Congress.' He repeated that promise a year later, adding for sharper effect, 'If the people should, by whatever mode or means, make it an Executive duty to re-enslave such persons, another, and not I, must be their instrument to perform it.' Emancipation was now securely wedged into the war's equation as a sine qua non of victory."

"This was not just bluff. Slave runaways from the Confederacy now had a legal claim on freedom and could not be arrested as fugitives or interned as contrabands; every rebel county, every rebel city, and every rebel state the Union armies overran became free territory for at least the duration of the war; prosecutions for violations of the Proclamation went forward in at least two documented cases while the war was in progress. 'I hold that this Proclamation did, in law, free every slave in all the region it covered,' declared Charles Drake, the antislavery Missouri Radical, and 'on the very day it was issued.' No one should 'for a moment imagine that the Emancipation Proclamation had no force in law,' warned the abolitionist Robert Dale Owen. 'By that instrument three millions of slaves were legally set free.'"
Guelzo, pp. 227-228

@Copperhead-mi ,

Thank you for the above context. It is much appreciated when one can view a thought in full vice tiny bits and pieces.

And the reading appears to be much more honest.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Rebforever]

I doubt that 3,000,000 slaves set free.

 

[unionblue]

I doubt that 3,000,000 slaves set free.

"By that instrument three millions of slaves were legally set free."

It all started with the EP.

And without a race war.

Imagine that.

 

[CW Buff]

I have to excuse my tardy reply but I somehow didn't find enough time to appreciate your excellent postings as they do deserve.
Regarding the term "revolution" I must admit that it gets the more complicated the more one tries to get a definite grasp of it's meaning (like most often in arts a lot of people tend to shape and bend a term to fit their special interest).
I would tend to follow Saphroneth's approach and understand revolution as process which overturns an existing system (in all matters eg. mathematical theory, politics, economy) thoroughly.
I'd even dismiss the factor of success (as a failed revolution too can produce a new way of thinking and spread it and thus lead to the eventual demise of a traditional system - as happened in the aftermath of 1848).
Regarding the morale right to make a revolution - well, that is a highly subjective category I am loath to use - especially regarding former ages where it would be hard to come to an universal conclusion what morale laws were effectively valid in those ages.

The problem I addressed was the common use of "rebellion" as a pejorative term - which I do not feel it is. It just depicts a movement of resistance against any existing government, regardless of eventual morality, justification or revolutionary character of that movement.

To be sure I would find it hard to find anything revolutionary in the secession movement - they rather tried to stop (or secede from) a evolution in the US they perceived as revolutionary by themselves and to keep up a status quo (at least in southern society).

I don't know if this could be of any interest to you (or to anyone), it's admittedly mere academic bla bla without much of a practical relevance.

Much more interesting I deem the point you addressed: the motivation of the US to wage war which I'd like to start a thread about.

No need to apologize for taking time to reply to me. I'm a worst offender, don't have the time I'd like to dedicate to the Forum.

My whole point is that revolution "overturns an existing system . . . thoroughly." As I see it you and Saphroneth are saying such a result is NOT necessary:

"I would tend to follow Saphroneth's approach and understand revolution as process which overturns an existing system (in all matters eg. mathematical theory, politics, economy) thoroughly. . . . I'd even dismiss the factor of success..."

Is this not a contradiction? If you don't have success, you don't have "overturns an existing system . . . thoroughly," correct? Let's forget about mathematical revolutions, etc. Though I addressed that, that was not introduced by me. That is a different definition of revolution (though one that still connotes actual change), and one that does not have any corollary among the definitions of rebellion that I am aware of. We are discussing the ACW, the AR, rebellion/revolution meaning the attempted/actual forced overthrow of an existing government. "The eventual demise of a traditional system" seems to refer to the former, a revolution of ideas, i.e. mathematical revolutions, rather than a conflict to overthrow established government. The conflicts ended in 1849, was there any change as of then? I think you are conflating a rebellion designed to overthrow government with revolutionary ideas. The Revolutions of 1848 did not produce the ideas, in fact the ideas produced the rebellions. The rebellions, the conflicts designed to overthrow the old order, were unsuccessful, and did not effect an overthrow of existing governments. The ideas that sparked those rebellions lived on, and eventually effected actual change. However, that change was effected legally, not by a forced overthrow. From Wikipedia, The Revolutions of 1848:

"Historian Priscilla Smith Robertson argues that many goals were achieved by the 1870s, but the credit primarily goes to the enemies of the 1848 revolutionaries:

'Most of what the men of 1848 fought for was brought about within a quarter of a century, and the men who accomplished it were most of them specific enemies of the 1848 movement. Thiers ushered in a third French Republic, Bismarck united Germany, and Cavour, Italy. Deák won autonomy for Hungary within a dual monarchy; a Russian czar freed the serfs; and the British manufacturing classes moved toward the freedoms of the People's Charter.'[58]​"

Google legal definitions of the two terms. I think you will find rebellion defined as a conflict against government (a definition that does not indicate success/an actual overthrow), and revolution defined as a forced overthrow of government (overthrow completed). One speaks of the intent of conflict, the other speaks of its actual result. I'm dealing with those legal definitions, much as SCOTUS did in TX v White. Again, if you hold that rebellion is equivalent to revolution, then SCOTUS legalized rebellion via TX v. White. They didn't, they only recognized that a successful rebellion, a revolution, institutes a new legal order/government.

As far as the moral question, I agree, it's entirely subjective. That's the difference between law and morality. When someone claims to be exercising the moral right to revolution for just cause, they have no unique or sole authority to judge the right vs wrong of it. Everyone has the moral authority to chime in on the moral question. That's what the DoI is all about, an appeal to the world to judge their causes.

 

[Piedone]

No need to apologize for taking time to reply to me. I'm a worst offender, don't have the time I'd like to dedicate to the Forum.

My whole point is that revolution "overturns an existing system . . . thoroughly." As I see it you and Saphroneth are saying such a result is NOT necessary:

"I would tend to follow Saphroneth's approach and understand revolution as process which overturns an existing system (in all matters eg. mathematical theory, politics, economy) thoroughly. . . . I'd even dismiss the factor of success..."

Is this not a contradiction? If you don't have success, you don't have "overturns an existing system . . . thoroughly," correct? Let's forget about mathematical revolutions, etc. Though I addressed that, that was not introduced by me. That is a different definition of revolution (though one that still connotes actual change), and one that does not have any corollary among the definitions of rebellion that I am aware of. We are discussing the ACW, the AR, rebellion/revolution meaning the attempted/actual forced overthrow of an existing government. "The eventual demise of a traditional system" seems to refer to the former, a revolution of ideas, i.e. mathematical revolutions, rather than a conflict to overthrow established government. The conflicts ended in 1849, was there any change as of then? I think you are conflating a rebellion designed to overthrow government with revolutionary ideas. The Revolutions of 1848 did not produce the ideas, in fact the ideas produced the rebellions. The rebellions, the conflicts designed to overthrow the old order, were unsuccessful, and did not effect an overthrow of existing governments. The ideas that sparked those rebellions lived on, and eventually effected actual change. However, that change was effected legally, not by a forced overthrow. From Wikipedia, The Revolutions of 1848:

"Historian Priscilla Smith Robertson argues that many goals were achieved by the 1870s, but the credit primarily goes to the enemies of the 1848 revolutionaries:

'Most of what the men of 1848 fought for was brought about within a quarter of a century, and the men who accomplished it were most of them specific enemies of the 1848 movement. Thiers ushered in a third French Republic, Bismarck united Germany, and Cavour, Italy. Deák won autonomy for Hungary within a dual monarchy; a Russian czar freed the serfs; and the British manufacturing classes moved toward the freedoms of the People's Charter.'[58]​"

Google legal definitions of the two terms. I think you will find rebellion defined as a conflict against government (a definition that does not indicate success/an actual overthrow), and revolution defined as a forced overthrow of government (overthrow completed). One speaks of the intent of conflict, the other speaks of its actual result. I'm dealing with those legal definitions, much as SCOTUS did in TX v White. Again, if you hold that rebellion is equivalent to revolution, then SCOTUS legalized rebellion via TX v. White. They didn't, they only recognized that a successful rebellion, a revolution, institutes a new legal order/government.

As far as the moral question, I agree, it's entirely subjective. That's the difference between law and morality. When someone claims to be exercising the moral right to revolution for just cause, they have no unique or sole authority to judge the right vs wrong of it. Everyone has the moral authority to chime in on the moral question. That's what the DoI is all about, an appeal to the world to judge their causes.

I have absolutely to agree with you -
albeit I'd not universally consent with Mrs. Robertson's interpretation.
It definitely WERE the people of 1848 who afterwards sat in the prussian (and then the german) parliament who eg. hounded Bismarck into accepting one liberal right after the other ending up in a much more democratic society than he most probably ever wished.
Hence my idea of 1848 as not a thoroughly failed rebellion but as part of a bigger revolutionary process who in the end overturned the aristocratic class society Bismarck seemingly preferred (at least he liked to create that impression in public...)
But yes, I have absolutely to consent with you: success is indeed the decisive requirement to be able to classify something as a revolution.

 

[Elliot Crumblemuffin]

Note the biblical references and the assertions that these views are ordained by the Creator. As a politician, Stephens knew his audience and well understood the message he was sending. More later . . . .

This quote jumped out at me

Thank you for sharing! This is a great example of the strategy politicians use to deliver propaganda to the appropriate audience, especially to young folks without much experience or wisdom. It is calling on their sense of religious duty in an attempt to rally common-folk to fight for their politicians cause.

Solely speaking from an objective "political strategy" context, it is interesting to see the differences (and/or similarities) between propaganda messages employed by the North and the South to accomplish the same goal: recruit as many grunts as possible! This was (and is) certainly not a new occurrence or particular to the governments of the U.S.A/C.S.A. at the time.

We still see that this strategy is alive and well today. To me, the biggest difference is that the "message" has evolved to reflect the changing values of our society (but it is not THAT different). But the goal is the same: Get these young men to the front as quickly as possible!

 

[A. Roy]

This is a great example of the strategy politicians use to deliver propaganda to the appropriate audience, especially to young folks without much experience or wisdom. It is calling on their sense of religious duty in an attempt to rally common-folk to fight for their politicians cause.

Yes, there's much irony to be found in the religious situation during the war, and that's a striking passage from Stephens's Cornerstone Speech.

Just a reminder to be discreet about mentioning modern politics here, although I understand the parallel you're drawing.

R