The Real Cause of Secession

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Its continuing existence, not the establishment is relevant. It was also established, for example, in New York State but New York State did not have cause to secede in 1861.

Furthermore, slave trading was done to meet a demand. Remove one set of suppliers but keep the demand and it would still exist

It's origin, not it's continuing existence, is the critical point. Again: no slave-trade=no slavery=no secession (according to you). Therefore slave-trading is the real (root) cause of secession.
 

seboyle

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Location
Squamish, B.C.
Once again, there are no absolutes imposed on a free people before they assert and exercise their natural rights and protect their political interests. Just as I said, the DOI empowers the citizens to judge for themselves when their rights have been breached and they are entitled to act. The citizens make that decision for themselves, no one else. Otherwise the result is war, as King George, quite obviously, did not agree that the colonists rights were violated, and he moved violently to restrain them. And the Declaration of Independence is, most emphatically, not a declaration of war. Your reading fails to consider contemplate these most palpable considerations.
And once again you are ignoring anything to do with the claim that it is a 'natural right' to revolution. Remember, that was YOUR original claim.

I do not deny that the Confederacy (or indeed any group whatsoever) could, as a matter of practical fact, assert their claims and believe them. But that does not make those claims or those beliefs right or correct.

What you originally said was that they were asserting their 'right' to revolution. They were not. They were carrying out a revolution (something any group can do whenever it chooses) but it was not their 'right' to do so. Those are two different things.

The 'right' to revolution is explained step-by-step in the DOI and follows a Lockean argument, there is no other cogent version of this argument that I am aware of. If you want to deem it a 'right' is has to follow the steps explained in the DOI or you have to muster up a cogent alternative theory, something I don't think you'll be able to do.

Have your revolution all you want but please don't dress it up as a natural right. There is no right to enslave people and therefore no right to revolution in this case, whatever transpired in actuality.
 

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
If you've read The Slave Trade then you must know that the New England slave-traffickers inflicted unimaginable miseries on their human cargo and their role was indispensable in establishing slavery in America. Which reinforces the fact that New England slave-trading was the real cause of secession.
I not arguing that the slave trade wasn't a bad thing. I'm saying that the Atlantic Slave Trade wasn't part of the secession crisis.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
And once again you are ignoring anything to do with the claim that it is a 'natural right' to revolution. Remember, that was YOUR original claim.

I do not deny that the Confederacy (or indeed any group whatsoever) could, as a matter of practical fact, assert their claims and believe them. But that does not make those claims or those beliefs right or correct.

What you originally said was that they were asserting their 'right' to revolution. They were not. They were carrying out a revolution (something any group can do whenever it chooses) but it was not their 'right' to do so. Those are two different things.

The 'right' to revolution is explained step-by-step in the DOI and follows a Lockean argument, there is no other cogent version of this argument that I am aware of. If you want to deem it a 'right' is has to follow the steps explained in the DOI or you have to muster up a cogent alternative theory, something I don't think you'll be able to do.

Have your revolution all you want but please don't dress it up as a natural right. There is no right to enslave people and therefore no right to revolution in this case, whatever transpired in actuality.

You're unfortunate interpretation of the DOI reduces unassailable rights to mere claims. And that, in turn, assures violence and war. And as I said, that is not the point of the DOI.
 

seboyle

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Location
Squamish, B.C.
You have it exactly backwards. It is you, as the Prince, attempting to impose and sustain an unjust political order, who has the obligation to demonstrate why I don't have the rights and am not entitled to assert and exercise them.
1) What exactly was it that was unjust about the existing political order? Be precise.

2) You are not, ever, entitled to assert and exercise your 'right to enslave people' because no such right exists.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
It's origin, not it's continuing existence, is the critical point. Again: no slave-trade=no slavery=no secession (according to you). Therefore slave-trading is the real (root) cause of secession.
Secession was an attempted action taken by people in the 1860s, so their motivation is what determines the cause
The origin of the institution wasnt the driving force for their motivation, so it doesnt follow that it is the cause
 

seboyle

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Location
Squamish, B.C.
You're unfortunate interpretation of the DOI reduces unassailable rights to mere claims. And that, in turn, assures violence and war. And as I said, that is not the point of the DOI.
I have shown that what you claim are "unassailable rights" are no such thing. Please explain what you feel is the philosophical justification for the right to revolution.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
If the slaves never got here and there was no slavery, would there still have been a secession crisis?
If Christopher Columbus had not stumbled across the Americas, there would not have been a battle of Gettysburg.
Are you claiming that Christopher Columbus was the root cause of the battle of Gettysburg?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
I have shown that what you claim are "unassailable rights" are no such thing. Please explain what you feel is the philosophical justification for the right to revolution.
You seem to be missing the point. If you are the Prince, then you demonstrate to me why your order is just. Then I'll decide if it is, and whether or not it will be honored.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
If Christopher Columbus had not stumbled across the Americas, there would not have been a battle of Gettysburg.
Are you claiming that Christopher Columbus was the root cause of the battle of Gettysburg?

I see. So if slave-trading was not profitable for New England slave-traders, they wouldn't have brought the slaves over and we wouldn't have had slavery, but still would have had secession and war. So a war over slavery even though there were no slaves. Makes perfect sense to me.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
I see. So if slave-trading was not profitable for New England slave-traders, they still would have brought the slaves over and we still would have had slavery, secession, and war. So a war of slavery even though there were no slaves. Makes perfect sense to me.
None of that follows from what I have said.
Are you going to answer my question?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top