Big Mistake

[unionblue]

I'm a bit scared to ignite another fiery discussion, we have had many on that subject already, but I think that state's rights in general or better the neglect of state's rights by a Federal government is a major issue. We should avoid discussing modern politics - but think about the former Soviet Union and the many states which seceded from it and most recently the Ukraine/Krim question. No slaves anywhere - but nevertheless the wish to secede.

FarawayFriend,

But why a wish to secede?

To me, secession only occurs when someone is upset about something and the only remedy they see is secession. Secession is a reaction, it does not occur in a political or social vacum.

And I agree that slavery does not have to be the only reason for secession, but I have read although secession was discussed and debated from the very founding of the American nation, it was never attempted until the issue of slavery came to a head in 19th century America.

The wish to secede is not a reason, it is an act committed in response to a reason.

In my humble opinion.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Elennsar]

Except that the only states who had had the federal government coerce them into anything were the free states that had had the Fugitive Slave Act enforced at their expense.

The Federal government of 1860 was simply too small to be the kind of threat to states's rights that is claimed. It couldn't have intruded very much even if we assume totalitarian centralists were in charge.

 

[FarawayFriend]

FarawayFriend,

But why a wish to secede?

To me, secession only occurs when someone is upset about something and the only remedy they see is secession. Secession is a reaction, it does not occur in a political or social vacum.

And I agree that slavery does not have to be the only reason for secession, but I have read although secession was discussed and debated from the very founding of the American nation, it was never attempted until the issue of slavery came to a head in 19th century America.

The wish to secede is not a reason, it is an act committed in response to a reason.

In my humble opinion.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

UB, you know that I highly value your comments and at the same time I feel a bit like walking on thin ice because I know too little of the actual facts that lead to the wish to secede. But spoken in general I think that the need to accept Federal acts and Federal law because you are part of a Federacy might lead to some kind of frustration and the wish to be no longer part of that Federacy. And from what I have learned there were a lot of differences between the northern and the southern states, e.g. the North being more industrialized, the South following a more agricultural and nearly aristocratic lifestyle ... and the general impression that there is a government which does not know enough of you to be able to determine how you should live even nowadays leads to a considerable frustration. Sorry for another detour to modern politics but we experience that feeling here in Europe right now. Germany had to change some of her laws, watering down strict rules (e.g. about the allowed contents of chemicals in food) in order to realize the new European law based on other state's regulations. Many of us Germans do not appreciate that. So there are cases in which we have to follow rules we fail to comprehend and on the other side sometimes we cannot enforce things that in our understanding should be enforced for all member states. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-European but this is the conflict probably any federation has to face. And if the feeling prevails that you have to sacrifice more than you might win - then the wish to secede starts to grow.

Please excuse this probably naive and moreover quite clumsily phrased statement - as I said, politics is not really the field on which I feel at home. I just wanted to say that while of course and by all means slavery had to be abolished there were still enough other reasons that might have justified (at least in the minds of the southern leaders) the wish to secede.

 

[Elennsar]

If this is what you consider clumsily phrased, I can only stare in awe and envy at your eloquence. It seems very well spoken to my eyes.

 

[unionblue]

UB, you know that I highly value your comments and at the same time I feel a bit like walking on thin ice because I know too little of the actual facts that lead to the wish to secede. But spoken in general I think that the need to accept Federal acts and Federal law because you are part of a Federacy might lead to some kind of frustration and the wish to be no longer part of that Federacy. And from what I have learned there were a lot of differences between the northern and the southern states, e.g. the North being more industrialized, the South following a more agricultural and nearly aristocratic lifestyle ... and the general impression that there is a government which does not know enough of you to be able to determine how you should live even nowadays leads to a considerable frustration. Sorry for another detour to modern politics but we experience that feeling here in Europe right now. Germany had to change some of her laws, watering down strict rules (e.g. about the allowed contents of chemicals in food) in order to realize the new European law based on other state's regulations. Many of us Germans do not appreciate that. So there are cases in which we have to follow rules we fail to comprehend and on the other side sometimes we cannot enforce things that in our understanding should be enforced for all member states. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-European but this is the conflict probably any federation has to face. And if the feeling prevails that you have to sacrifice more than you might win - then the wish to secede starts to grow.

Please excuse this probably naive and moreover quite clumsily phrased statement - as I said, politics is not really the field on which I feel at home. I just wanted to say that while of course and by all means slavery had to be abolished there were still enough other reasons that might have justified (at least in the minds of the southern leaders) the wish to secede.

FarawayFriend,

I will never excuse the honest opinion of a friend who wishes to discuss with me anything concerning the American Civil War.

I sincerely appreciate your above post and the opinions and views you state in it. Never be concerned with me when you state your honest views and opinion, as I value them highly.

I understand where you feel that there may be friction over Federal laws and actions concerning the States that might resent such, but as I have stated previously, I am of the opinion that until the institution of slavery came to the forefront of the American political scene in the 1800s, no other source of friction, no other law or regulation, not even the Tariff of Abominations could force a majority of the country to consider secession in any serious manner.

Yes, it was discussed, but there was always a reason behind that discussion that led to the idea that secession must be applied or used in order to address or redress the problem at hand.

This is my only view, not disagreeing with you that secession was not ever discussed, but there always had to be a reason for such an action to take place.

Until our next post,
Unionblue

 

[FarawayFriend]

If this is what you consider clumsily phrased, I can only stare in awe and envy at your eloquence. It seems very well spoken to my eyes.

Thank you! That's very kind of you!

 

[unionblue]

If this is what you consider clumsily phrased, I can only stare in awe and envy at your eloquence. It seems very well spoken to my eyes.

100% agreement with your above.

 

[Lnwlf]

I agree with Union Blue and Elennsar, Faraway Friend. I wish I could be so clumsy.

 

[whitworth]

Margaret Mitchell -Gone With The Wind
Of any Civil War book, I always thought Margaret Mitchell said it best in her novel, 'Gone With The Wind.' Southerners understood valor; they came up far short on the logistics of war. Even near the end, R.E. Lee didn't get it; the educated officers, excepting the quartermaster officers, didn't get it; even after Hood's horrendous defeat in Tennessee and after the capture of Atlanta, many Confederates did not get it.
The Confederate soldiers wounded and killed at Sailor's Creek didn't get it. No one seemed to get it in the South. Except after Appomattox. There was no ignoring Appomattox.


"Gentlemen," said Rhett Butler,..."may I say a word?"

..."Has any one of you gentlemen ever thought that there's not a cannon factory south of the Mason-Dixon Line? Or how few iron foundries there are in the South? Or woolen mills or cotton factories or tanneries? Have you thought that we would not have a single warship and that the Yankee fleet could bottle up our harbors in a week, so that we could not sell our cotton abroad? But--of course--you gentlemen have thought of these things."

..."I have seen many things that you all have not seen. The thousands of immigrants who'd be glad to fight for the Yankees for food and a few dollars, the factories, the foundries, the shipyards, the iron and coal mines -all things we haven't got. Why, all we have is cotton and slaves and arrogance. They'd lick us in a month."

Rhett Butler, in character, didn't get it all right. But his ideas were entirely ignored or unknown to the Confederate leadership. Ideas, which should have been considered. Perhaps valor makes room for little else.

 

[Carronade]

I'm a bit scared to ignite another fiery discussion, we have had many on that subject already, but I think that state's rights in general or better the neglect of state's rights by a Federal government is a major issue. We should avoid discussing modern politics - but think about the former Soviet Union and the many states which seceded from it and most recently the Ukraine/Krim question. No slaves anywhere - but nevertheless the wish to secede.

I don't think anyone would say that slavery is the only possible reason for secession, but there always is a reason or reasons. People don't just secede in a vacuum. People who are content with the policies of their central government don't just say "Hmmmm, we need more emphasis on states' rights", let alone seek to split the nation.

Edited to remove modern politics.

 

[damYankee]

DamYankee, you didn't read the directions, in the OP.

Edit: Sheesh, damYankee, not Ned. Whoops.

sorry 'bout that.

 

[shanniereb]

Well, I think that the failure to calculate the cost of the war if they didn't win the first battle, and if the Yankees had more drive than to just let it go at that. I think they should have calculated the cost of lives IF they war had dragged on (like it did). They failed to project a devastated South and the hard economic conditions that followed. The failed to think of the resources the North had at it's disposal (manpower and manufactured goods). If they had calculated these costs I believe there would not have been a war.

 

[FarawayFriend]

100% agreement with your above.

I agree with Union Blue and Elennsar, Faraway Friend. I wish I could be so clumsy.

Let me once again say thank you that you accept my posts and express how much I feel at home here amongst so many kind people!
I'm soooo glad that I found you.
[Sorry Mods for being off topic. I had to say that.]

 

[James N.]

I'm a bit scared to ignite another fiery discussion, we have had many on that subject already, but I think that state's rights in general or better the neglect of state's rights by a Federal government is a major issue. We should avoid discussing modern politics - but think about the former Soviet Union and the many states which seceded from it and most recently the Ukraine/Krim question. No slaves anywhere - but nevertheless the wish to secede.

I wouldn't liken the current Ukrainian situation to secession because the Soviet Union had already imploded and dissolved and the other soviets separated form Russia with little ado. ( Putin probably refuses to admit this though. ) Krim may want to secede from Ukraine, but that particular situation reminds me most of Hitler's actions towards Czechoslovakia in regard to the Sudetenland, especially in Putin's lame excuse about protecting the rights of the ethnic Russians in both Krim and eastern Ukraine - where have we heard THAT before!?

 

[leftyhunter]

I'm a bit scared to ignite another fiery discussion, we have had many on that subject already, but I think that state's rights in general or better the neglect of state's rights by a Federal government is a major issue. We should avoid discussing modern politics - but think about the former Soviet Union and the many states which seceded from it and most recently the Ukraine/Krim question. No slaves anywhere - but nevertheless the wish to secede.

Your right we have beaten this horse to death. On the other hand what state right was the CSA fighting for. The words of contemporary Southern leaders is quite plain and to the point ;they wanted to keep their slaves.
Leftyhunter

 

[ole]

Let me once again say thank you that you accept my posts and express how much I feel at home here amongst so many kind people!
I'm soooo glad that I found you.
[Sorry Mods for being off topic. I had to say that.]

Don't think another minute, Friend, the mods are kittycats and leave lots of room to be real. Just don't say **** or **** or **** or a few other things and you're cool.

 

[cash]

I'm a bit scared to ignite another fiery discussion, we have had many on that subject already, but I think that state's rights in general or better the neglect of state's rights by a Federal government is a major issue. We should avoid discussing modern politics - but think about the former Soviet Union and the many states which seceded from it and most recently the Ukraine/Krim question. No slaves anywhere - but nevertheless the wish to secede.

Actually, they only wanted state rights when it came to protecting slavery. If a state tried to exercise its state rights to interfere with slavery, they were against state rights.

State rights was not the reason for secession and not the reason why they wanted their independence.

 

[TinCan]

I wonder just how many were influenced by the notion of starting a new nation and go from being little fish in a big pond to being big fish in a little pond? Is that the reason Davis accepted the presidency instead of the commission of an officer in the army? He might have made a better officer.

 

[cash]

On the other hand, one might consider that if the federals ruled on slavery as a states rights issue, the states would be leaving themselves open to further power grabs by the Union.

I'm not sure what that means.

150 years after the abolishment of slavery, States rights is still a hotly debated topic as the Federal government flexes it's muscles on many current issues.

In the '50s and '60s it was used to defend segregation and Jim Crow.

 

[cash]

Times change don't they? What about today, tomorrow 10 years from now?The growth of the power of an unelected federal bureaucracy has far surpassed what the framers visualized Perhaps our 19th century saw what was looming on the horizon.

Well, I don't want to get into modern politics, but the fact that they consistently talked about slavery as the reason for wanting their independence leads me to believe this line leads nowhere historically speaking.