Restricted Is Lost Cause a real thing or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
So when Lincoln said to the first wave of Southern states to secede after they had already seceded the way they did that, "You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors," you don't think there was any way he could really have been telling the truth (at least not without Lincoln compromising on the position he had already staked out)? At that point was Lincoln leaving the seceded states any way to maintain their position without shooting?
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
I am unaware of any peaceful secessions where the secessionists didn’t work within the existing government to secure their independence.
Secessionists working amiably with existing governments for independence before the mid-20th century is a fairly rare phenomenon. Had secessionists taken that route until that time there would have been far fewer countries in the world until comparatively recent, including the USA.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
Secessionists working amiably with existing governments for independence before the mid-20th century is a fairly rare phenomenon. Had secessionists taken that route until that time there would have been far fewer countries in the world until comparatively recent, including the USA.

So I’m to take it that there aren’t any examples?
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
So when Lincoln said to the first wave of Southern states to secede after they had already seceded the way they did that, "You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors," you don't think there was any way he could really have been telling the truth (at least not without Lincoln compromising on the position he had already staked out)? At that point was Lincoln leaving the seceded states any way to maintain their position without shooting?
The CS could have averted war by prolonging the standoff indefinitely.

Perhaps the US would have seen some benefit in letting the slave states leave?

Perhaps the CS would have advanced their case through the political system and the Supreme Court?

The south chose war, so that's what they got.
 
Last edited:

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
Are you asking for examples of secessionists getting independence through peaceful negotiations with existing countries?:unsure:

The claim was that other countries were able to separate secession and war. I said I couldn’t think of an example of a peaceful secession where the secessionists didn’t work within the existing government structure to obtain their independence. Is there an example of a unilateral secession where the secessionists didn’t work within the existing government that was peaceful?
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
The claim was that other countries were able to separate secession and war. I said I couldn’t think of an example of a peaceful secession where the secessionists didn’t work within the existing government structure to obtain their independence. Is there an example of a unilateral secession where the secessionists didn’t work within the existing government that was peaceful?

I doubt there are any comporting to the way your question is framed. Even countries getting independence peacefully after the mid-nineteenth century would have had some type of negotiations with the mother country. My point, in case it was missed, is that if you wanted independence before that time secessionists usually had to fight for it. An example would be the colonial unilateral secessionists not wasting time going through a lot of legal maneuvers with the British in 1776.
 

Dead Parrott

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 30, 2019
Secessionists working amiably with existing governments for independence before the mid-20th century is a fairly rare phenomenon. Had secessionists taken that route until that time there would have been far fewer countries in the world until comparatively recent, including the USA.

Agreed. And not really that surprising, if you consider 1.) the reason most would want to secede might be culturally contentious, and 2.) the tendency toward imperial aggrandizement that existed for most nations of that period. Allowing secession is the exact reverse.
 

chitoryu12

Cadet
Joined
May 6, 2019
I doubt there are any comporting to the way your question is framed. Even countries getting independence peacefully after the mid-nineteenth century would have had some type of negotiations with the mother country. My point, in case it was missed, is that if you wanted independence before that time secessionists usually had to fight for it. An example would be the colonial unilateral secessionists not wasting time going through a lot of legal maneuvers with the British in 1776.

On the other hand, the colonists would have been fine with a peaceful declaration of independence. The British were the first to utilize military action and spur a war to keep their colonial holdings. The South, on the other hand, declared secession and immediately began attacking Union forts and supply depots until they forced a response.

As far as peaceful secession, I don't know of any that didn't involve popular support or were about colonial holdings (like the British letting their colonies declare independence with referendums after World War II). There's certainly been bloodless revolutions, like the Velvet Revolution that removed the Czechoslovakian government and allowed the states to split, but that's not exactly the same thing. Governments are loath to allow portions to secede because of the risk it poses to stability and federal authority.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
So when Lincoln said to the first wave of Southern states to secede after they had already seceded the way they did that, "You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors," you don't think there was any way he could really have been telling the truth (at least not without Lincoln compromising on the position he had already staked out)? At that point was Lincoln leaving the seceded states any way to maintain their position without shooting?



True enough, except, it did not start with the Inaugural Address. Secession had left no real room for Lincoln to accomodate the results of secession.

Lincoln warned the seceding states that their actions had effectively tied his hands. They had left him almost no room to compromise his Oath of Office with the duties required of him by the Constitution.

The Constitutional duties and authority he inherited from Buchcanan(and, from every previous President going back to the very beginnings of Constitutional Gov't) had no recogniktion of any power, or authority, that could deny a President from fulfilling all his fuctions as Executor of all the laws of the Constitution and signified by a most solemn Oath, i.e., secessionists had no power or authority to destroy the Union, while he had a most soemn one to protect it.
 

Captain Davis

Private
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Location
Millbrook/Montgomery, Alabama
The main tenets of Lost Cause are:

1. The south never had a chance - the North only won because they had overwhelming advantages in everything that could be counted.
2. The war was about anything except slavery.
3. The south only wanted to be left alone.
4. Southern men could beat almost any number of Yankees, but see #1 above if they don't.
5. The south only fought because they were "invaded" by the Yankees - Rebels firing 1st on April 12, 1861 is a d***ed Yankee lie.
6. Secession is absolutely, positively allowed by the U.S. Constitution.
As a pro Confederate, I agree with 1 and 4.
The Cotton states certainly wanted to protect slavery, but slavery itself wasn’t the cause of secession. Slavery was the recent occasion, but independence was the reason for secession.
The idea that one Reb is worth ten yanks is ridiculous. However, the Confederates were actually protecting their homes, so they had stronger motivation. Plus, they believed they were fighting a second revolution, so I believe the Confederates were more motivated and took it more personal.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
I doubt there are any comporting to the way your question is framed. Even countries getting independence peacefully after the mid-nineteenth century would have had some type of negotiations with the mother country. My point, in case it was missed, is that if you wanted independence before that time secessionists usually had to fight for it. An example would be the colonial unilateral secessionists not wasting time going through a lot of legal maneuvers with the British in 1776.

They did waste time trying legal means to redress their grievances.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Southerners had attempted to redress their grievances for decades; the disaffected colonists not so much until after the French and Indian war.

Southerners had no reason "to redress their grievances for decades" as they were in control of the federal government and the majority of it's legislation for those decades.
 

wausaubob

Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
The main tenets of Lost Cause are:

1. The south never had a chance - the North only won because they had overwhelming advantages in everything that could be counted.
2. The war was about anything except slavery.
3. The south only wanted to be left alone.
4. Southern men could beat almost any number of Yankees, but see #1 above if they don't.
5. The south only fought because they were "invaded" by the Yankees - Rebels firing 1st on April 12, 1861 is a d***ed Yankee lie.
6. Secession is absolutely, positively allowed by the U.S. Constitution.
The Lost Cause is an effective rhetorical tool, because No. 1 is true.
As demonstrated after about 14 months of political advocacy and fighting, by June of 1862 the US was a unified 24 state nation fighting against 10 and 4/5ths states. In terms of combat, the US was going to win, one way or another. In terms of global politics, once the British empire decided that slavery was inherently unstable, it was going to disappear.
A social order based on planting and cotton was going to come up against a world based on steam engines, steel, telegraphs and telephones, and mineral solvents.
By 1880 the railroads had restructured time in the US. By 1890 northern railroad companies owned all of the railroads in the south. The economic order of the cotton south, in the 1860 was too small and too static to wield significant power in the United States.
The Lost Cause conceals the fact that the Confederacy was fortunate to lose before high explosives were harnessed and the iron industry converted to steel.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top