Celtic and other influences on secession split from Secession: Was it legal ?

Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
471
#1
I have to partially disagree with Professor McDonald (which is normal; he's the least crazy of the three initial proponents of the bizarre and debunked Anglo/Celtic theory that a certain recent poster is so obsessed with); McDonald is mostly accurate in the above quotes so far as he goes - just as he was mostly accurate as far as he went in the Constitutional bicentennial speech in which he discussed the lucky circumstances that allowed for the right group of men at the right time, but acted as if slavery wasn't even on the framers' minds - but I think numerous posters in this thread have provided evidence that there were quite a few theoretical guidelines on secession, just no substantive legal or historical ones. The issue wasn't that there were no theories, but that there were nothing but theories.

I just have one question; where was it ever 'debunked'? Is there a page on here where it is discussed? Is it legal to discuss it at all on here? And if that was not the difference between these two peoples, something else caused the great dialect divide, the great ethics divide and the great lifestyle divide. One clearly thought Secession to be legal, as a right... while the other, politically indisposed to such, did not.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

IcarusPhoenix

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
1,804
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
#4
I just have one question; where was it ever 'debunked'? Is there a page on here where it is discussed? Is it legal to discuss it at all on here? And if that was not the difference between these two peoples, something else caused the great dialect divide, the great ethics divide and the great lifestyle divide. One clearly thought Secession to be legal, as a right... while the other, politically indisposed to such, did not.
Just because you've actively ignored multiple posts showing the inaccuracy of a white supremacist wet dream does not will that evidence into non-being; at least five posters have demonstrated, among many other factors, that no one of the era thought that way - and that some members of the southern slaveholding aristocracy, among them Jefferson Davis, actually openly admired the English system - that the Celtic-descended population prior to the war was higher in the northern states than the southern, that your repeated use of Jefferson's "Anglomany" comment is inaccurate because he only used the term once while disparaging all of the nationalistic identities of old Europe (and only as an aside in a letter advocating the invasion of Canada), that there is neither genetic nor historical evidence in your favor, that the theory is soundly rejected in legitimate academic circles and only accepted among the fake intelligentsia of white supremacist hate groups, that the theory is based upon a modern fantasy about political dichotomies that did not yet exist, and that the theory requires a misunderstanding of basic genetics in that it is predicated on the idea of non-existent racial memory at the genetic level. You have been given repeated evidence of all of this and more in the form of sources, quotations, citations, maps, and links, and you have ignored them all and continued to repeat an endemicly bigoted falsehood ad infinitum without once offering evidence.

For that matter, if the northern states were "politically indisposed" towards secession, then why was the first legitimate threat of secession borne of the Hartford Convention in 1812?

(I'll give you a moment to find Hartford on a map...)
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
471
#5
Just because you've actively ignored multiple posts showing the inaccuracy of a white supremacist wet dream does not will that evidence into non-being; at least five posters have demonstrated, among many other factors, that no one of the era thought that way - and that some members of the southern slaveholding aristocracy, among them Jefferson Davis, actually openly admired the English system - that the Celtic-descended population prior to the war was higher in the northern states than the southern, that your repeated use of Jefferson's "Anglomany" comment is inaccurate because he only used the term once while disparaging all of the nationalistic identities of old Europe (and only as an aside in a letter advocating the invasion of Canada), that there is neither genetic nor historical evidence in your favor, that the theory is soundly rejected in legitimate academic circles and only accepted among the fake intelligentsia of white supremacist hate groups, that the theory is based upon a modern fantasy about political dichotomies that did not yet exist, and that the theory requires a misunderstanding of basic genetics in that it is predicated on the idea of non-existent racial memory at the genetic level. You have been given repeated evidence of all of this and more in the form of sources, quotations, citations, maps, and links, and you have ignored them all and continued to repeat an endemicly bigoted falsehood ad infinitum without once offering evidence.

For that matter, if the northern states were "politically indisposed" towards secession, then why was the first legitimate threat of secession borne of the Hartford Convention in 1812?

(I'll give you a moment to find Hartford on a map...)
Oh, I think that Jefferson used the term more than just the once. Much more. There are other sources which equally disagree with you. And the very predominant idea of the Legality of a Secession, which always 'failed' at the North, 'took' at the South. The love of English consolidation at the North (New England!) makes Secession illegal by its very construction, so the Hartford Convention and the Essex Junto and other plans fell through as a matter of course. Would that they had left us in peace! In seventy years, the idea of a Legal Secession goes from being what Davis called "A time when none doubted it" - to a gray area - to being 'illegalized' by a Northern-friendly Supreme judiciary. No sir, it will not do! This is in ratio and in direct proportion to the amount of Northern control over the whole of the country.

The legality of secession, believed by one part and not by another, must have to do with the differences in the cultural influences of either side; one consolidationalist, and one decentralized. How this is in any wise 'Supremacist' I cannot imagine.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
7,637
Location
California
#6
The legality of secession, believed by one part and not by another, must have to do with the differences in the cultural influences of either side; one consolidationalist, and one decentralized. How this is in any wise 'Supremacist' I cannot imagine.
Simply not true that it was believed by one part and not by another. Look at Andrew Jackson or Andrew Johnson or Henry Clay or Robert J Walker. All prominent southern politicians who denied the legality of secession. These men were not New Englanders by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
471
#7
Simply not true that it was believed by one part and not by another. Look at Andrew Jackson or Andrew Johnson or Henry Clay or Robert J Walker. All prominent southern politicians who denied the legality of secession. These men were not New Englanders by any stretch of the imagination.
I grant there were cross-overs, but the prevailing atmosphere in each area was the pattern that prevailed. The vast majority in the North were consolidationalists, while the South were decentralizers. The North really wanted an empire, like England, which outright denies secession as a possibility, while the South saw it increasingly as a haven for political refuge.

Clay never getting elected to the presidency, Compromise candidate Andrew (just as Alexander Hamilton Stephens had been such a candidate in the South; and unlike Davis, Stephens was allowed back into the Congress after the war, despite his 'treason') Johnson being despised to the point of impeachment, Walker was born in Pennsylvania, and tried to become a speculator in cotton and slaves... but caved to some pressure in 1838 (not that he did not have some interesting ideas). These men were minor players in the grand scheme of secession, while those stereotypes we all know and admire became the front runners... and they all 'followed suit' as trumps in their various regions.
 

IcarusPhoenix

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
1,804
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
#9
The legality of secession, believed by one part and not by another, must have to do with the differences in the cultural influences of either side; one consolidationalist, and one decentralized. How this is in any wise 'Supremacist' I cannot imagine.
Since the rest of your post is repetitive nonsense that came pre-debunked, I'm just going to ignore it, knowing that your eyes will glide over facts, but this simplistic tidbit was too amusing to pass up; the side-effect of only getting your "information" from people with archaic viewpoints on race: every problem looks racial - or, to use your all-too-common euphemism, "cultural". If all you have is a hammer...

Incidentally, you are correct that one side had a "consolidationalist" power structure, even if the idea is borne of your modern biases. One side was indeed led by an entrenched, oligarchical, landed aristocracy that placed the emphasis of right-to-rule on genetics and heredity. It was not, however, the north.
 

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,485
Location
Georgia
#10
Tariffs were not an issue before the War. The man who became the vice president of the confederacy made that very clear during the 1860 Georgia debates.

Alexander Stephens,
"The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed...The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together--every man in the Senate and the House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it...(the duties) were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at."

and even back when they were an issue the man that promoted the agitation over them clearly stated they were not the real issue.

John C Calhoun,
I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil and climate have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union, against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states they must in the end be forced to rebel, or, submit it to have their paramount interests sacrificed, their domestick institutions subordinated by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves and children reduced to wretchedness. Thus situated, the denial of the right to the State to interpose constitutionally in the last resort, more alarms the thinking, than all the other causes; and however strange it may appear, the more universally the state is condemned, and her right denied, the more resolute she is to assert her constitutional powers lest the neglect to assert should be considered a practical abandonment of them, under such circumstances.
The statement that tariffs were not an issue before the war is clearly incorrect. The Morrill Tariff Bill introduced in 1860 was vehemently opposed by the southern states because of its upward revision of rates. The Republican Party platform in the 1860 Presidential race advocated a strong protectionist tariff that mainly benefited northern manufacturers. In addition, the tariff issue was even addressed in some of the secession conventions of the southern states. For instance, one of the secession documents produced by South Carolina stated that "The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but...... to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures."
 

DanF

Captain
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
5,701
#11
The statement that tariffs were not an issue before the war is clearly incorrect. The Morrill Tariff Bill introduced in 1860 was vehemently opposed by the southern states because of its upward revision of rates. The Republican Party platform in the 1860 Presidential race advocated a strong protectionist tariff that mainly benefited northern manufacturers. In addition, the tariff issue was even addressed in some of the secession conventions of the southern states. For instance, one of the secession documents produced by South Carolina stated that "The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but...... to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures."
Alexander Stephens comments were made at the 1860 Georgia convention. Until the passage of the morrill tariff in March 1861 southerners had no complaint about Tariffs since the Tariff of 1857 was satisfactory to tbem.

How did the southern statea vehmently oppose The morrill Tariff? 7 of the Southern states had already declared secession and their representatives had left congress long before it's passage in March 1861.

And as far as what South Carolina said, I 'll point you back to the man that was the architect of agitation over tariff' s South Carolina's John C. Calhoun who later admitted tariff agitarion wasn't about tariffs at all it was about trying to unite the slave states against the free states to protect slavery.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 4, 2014
Messages
126
Location
Las Vegas
#12
I grant there were cross-overs, but the prevailing atmosphere in each area was the pattern that prevailed. The vast majority in the North were consolidationalists, while the South were decentralizers. The North really wanted an empire, like England, which outright denies secession as a possibility, while the South saw it increasingly as a haven for political refuge.
I think the South wanted an empire more than the North did. South Carolina and many southern states were very much in favor of both the annexation of Texas and the subsequent Mexican-American War while the North was more divided on the issue. And look at the platform of the Southern Democrats for the election of 1860: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29614
They favored the acquisition and annexation of Cuba, and consider the fact that many of the military filibusters who wished to expand U.S. influence into the Caribbean and central America were southern born men.
 

DanF

Captain
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
5,701
#13
I think the South wanted an empire more than the North did. South Carolina and many southern states were very much in favor of both the annexation of Texas and the subsequent Mexican-American War while the North was more divided on the issue. And look at the platform of the Southern Democrats for the election of 1860: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29614
They favored the acquisition and annexation of Cuba, and consider the fact that many of the military filibusters who wished to expand U.S. influence into the Caribbean and central America were southern born men.
Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
7,637
Location
California
#14
I think the South wanted an empire more than the North did. South Carolina and many southern states were very much in favor of both the annexation of Texas and the subsequent Mexican-American War while the North was more divided on the issue. And look at the platform of the Southern Democrats for the election of 1860: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29614
They favored the acquisition and annexation of Cuba, and consider the fact that many of the military filibusters who wished to expand U.S. influence into the Caribbean and central America were southern born men.
Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]
Jefferson (who funded Napoleon in exchange for the Louisiana territory) had also expressed his desire to add Cuba, the Floridas, Canada and Texas to what he called "an empire for liberty" (though really one of slavery).
 
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
9,422
Location
Carlisle, PA
#18
I grant there were cross-overs, but the prevailing atmosphere in each area was the pattern that prevailed. The vast majority in the North were consolidationalists, while the South were decentralizers. The North really wanted an empire, like England, which outright denies secession as a possibility, while the South saw it increasingly as a haven for political refuge.

Clay never getting elected to the presidency, Compromise candidate Andrew (just as Alexander Hamilton Stephens had been such a candidate in the South; and unlike Davis, Stephens was allowed back into the Congress after the war, despite his 'treason') Johnson being despised to the point of impeachment, Walker was born in Pennsylvania, and tried to become a speculator in cotton and slaves... but caved to some pressure in 1838 (not that he did not have some interesting ideas). These men were minor players in the grand scheme of secession, while those stereotypes we all know and admire became the front runners... and they all 'followed suit' as trumps in their various regions.
If you can seriously say that the South wasn't interested in imperialism with a straight face, I have to conclude that you are completely unfamiliar with the antebellum United States.

R
 

AndyHall

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
13,228
#19
Keep in mind that the "Celtic" culture southerners were fluffing each other about at the time of secession was much broader than the Scots and Irish we typically think of today; it included the ancient Greeks and Romans, along with more modern "Frenchmen and Spaniards." Charleston Mercury, 30 April 1861, p. 1:

Charleston Mercury 30 April 1861 p 1.jpg


So remember that the noble Celts spoken of by the southern nationalists included not only Mel Gibson all painted up in blue woad, but also King Leonidas in his leather man-panties and this guy.

Very strange.
 
Last edited:


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top