Was it worth it?

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

So far no one can answer the very simple question " what exact state right or rights was the Confederacy fighting for?"
Leftyhunter

They were fighting essentially and primarily for the "right" to have slavery. Other issues were miniscule compared to slavery, but ALL the states lost rights going forward, as previously mentioned.

 

[rvbgrif]

So far no one can answer the very simple question " what exact state right or rights was the Confederacy fighting for?"
Leftyhunter

The state right to leave the Union was the core of the dispute of the Civil War.

The Southern US, at that time, had a number of politicians who argued that they had that power. Unionists, although their population was probably as numerous as secessionists given the popularity of the Constitutional Union party, were either removed from office or supported the local governments which seceded. The North was also mixed, with both Unionists and those that took a range of other approaches, for example not believing the federal government had a right to invade a US state.

Why did these states want to leave? Well it wasn't for the right to have slaves. They already had that right. It was because of the election of Abraham Lincoln, as well as the decades long political conflicts between free and slave states in places such as Kansas, Harper's ferry, and across the north with the fugitive slave act.

 

[leftyhunter]

This is one reason why German immigrants fought overwhelmingly on the side of the Union, regardless their opinion on slavery. Too easy for foreign actors to influence and break up an entity with little centralized power or authority.

Yes and no. German Catholics were less then enthusiastic about fighting in the ACW and there were anti draft riots in Cincinnati and a few other cities that had large German and Irish Roman Catholic populations.
In Missouri German immigrants were mostly refugees from the post 1848 Revolution in the various Germanic political entries of that era. They were anti slavery and resented by many of the native born Missorians that favored slavery so they did fight for the Union.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

They were fighting essentially and primarily for the "right" to have slavery. Other issues were miniscule compared to slavery, but ALL the states lost rights going forward, as previously mentioned.

Except they weren't because as explained earlier President Lincoln had no intention of freeing any slaves as long as there was no secession. President Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery not the abolition of slavery although he found slavery distasteful.
Decades latter Southern white voters were rather enthusiastic about a strong federal government as long as they benefited from it.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

The state right to leave the Union was the core of the dispute of the Civil War.

The Southern US, at that time, had a number of politicians who argued that they had that power. Unionists, although their population was probably as numerous as secessionists given the popularity of the Constitutional Union party, were either removed from office or supported the local governments which seceded. The North was also mixed, with both Unionists and those that took a range of other approaches, for example not believing the federal government had a right to invade a US state.

Why did these states want to leave? Well it wasn't for the right to have slaves. They already had that right. It was because of the election of Abraham Lincoln, as well as the decades long political conflicts between free and slave states in places such as Kansas, Harper's ferry, and across the north with the fugitive slave act.

The expansion of slavery was why Secession was initially popular with white Southerners. Bleeding Kansas was a fight between informal militas over the expansion of slavery from Missouri into Kansas. Slavery owners during the Antebellum era financed rather unsuccessfully to expand slavery in Nicaragua and Cuba by financing " Fillabusters" such has William Walker and Narcisco Lopez ( who almost recruited Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee) to establish an independent slave republic in Cuba. If those who owned slaves just accepted the election results as indeed some slave owners did then there would of been no civil war.
Leftyhunter

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Yes and no. German Catholics were less then enthusiastic about fighting in the ACW and there were anti draft riots in Cincinnati and a few other cities that had large German and Irish Roman Catholic populations.
In Missouri German immigrants were mostly refugees from the post 1848 Revolution in the various Germanic political entries of that era. They were anti slavery and resented by many of the native born Missorians that favored slavery so they did fight for the Union.
Leftyhunter

I said one reason, not the reason. But the draft riots occurred much later, by which time many in the German communities were arguing they had already done their part - some estimates say upwards of 25% of northern soldiers were of German stock in August 1861. The early war response was quite strong.

 

[leftyhunter]

I said one reason, not the reason. But the draft riots occurred much later, by which time many in the German communities were arguing they had already done their part - some estimates say upwards of 25% of northern soldiers were of German stock in August 1861. The early war response was quite strong.

German ancestry doesn't equal German immigrants or even German ethnicity due to assimilation. My point was that German immigrants were far from a monolithic political group during the ACW.
Leftyhunter

 

[rvbgrif]

Decades latter Southern white voters were rather enthusiastic about a strong federal government as long as they benefited from it.

That is always the case.

Remember "no taxation without representation"? And then the US set up a new government and put down Shay's Rebellion in Western Massachusetts.

People don't have a problem with strong government. Strong government is what works. People have a problem with strong governments that don't work, or don't work for them.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

My point was that German immigrants were far from a monolithic political group during the ACW.
Leftyhunter

I don't think anyone who has done any real study on the topic disputes that. But "Yes and no" is an odd counter to "that is one reason why…"

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Except they weren't because as explained earlier President Lincoln had no intention of freeing any slaves as long as there was no secession. President Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery not the abolition of slavery although he found slavery distasteful.
Decades latter Southern white voters were rather enthusiastic about a strong federal government as long as they benefited from it.
Leftyhunter

You have made up your mind.

 

[leftyhunter]

That is always the case.

Remember "no taxation without representation"? And then the US set up a new government and put down Shay's Rebellion in Western Massachusetts.

People don't have a problem with strong government. Strong government is what works. People have a problem with strong governments that don't work, or don't work for them.

In the Antebellum era both political parties supported a relatively small government. The US military was very small and there was very limited federal law enforcement. There was no income tax or gasoline tax like today. If a person didn't buy foreign goods or alcohol they essentially lived tax free.
Southern whites weren't oppressed by the federal government in the Antebellum era or even the post ACW era as the federal governments role in American life was very limited.
Leftyhunter

 

[atlantis]

So far no one can answer the very simple question " what exact state right or rights was the Confederacy fighting for?"
Leftyhunter

The right of self-determination, A union you can't leave isn't a union but an empire.

 

[leftyhunter]

The right of self-determination, A union you can't leave isn't a union but an empire.

Name me one country where any group of people can secede and form their own country whenever they fell like it?
Leftyhunter

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

The state right to leave the Union was the core of the dispute of the Civil War.

The Southern US, at that time, had a number of politicians who argued that they had that power. Unionists, although their population was probably as numerous as secessionists given the popularity of the Constitutional Union party, were either removed from office or supported the local governments which seceded. The North was also mixed, with both Unionists and those that took a range of other approaches, for example not believing the federal government had a right to invade a US state.

Why did these states want to leave? Well it wasn't for the right to have slaves. They already had that right. It was because of the election of Abraham Lincoln, as well as the decades long political conflicts between free and slave states in places such as Kansas, Harper's ferry, and across the north with the fugitive slave act.

You are at least partially correct, @rvbgrif. The 13 original states VOLUNTARILY joined the "United" States, and most or all of them had many key people within who thought that they had the RIGHT to Voluntarily LEAVE the "United" States. When some of them tried to voluntarily leave, they were correct until the Federal Government of the "United" States invaded them and established militarily that the states must remain in the Union.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

You are at least partially correct, @rvbgrif. The 13 original states VOLUNTARILY joined the "United" States, and most or all of them had many key people within who thought that they had the RIGHT to Voluntarily LEAVE the "United" States. When some of them tried to voluntarily leave, they were correct until the Federal Government of the "United" States invaded them and established militarily that the states must remain in the Union.

After the war, on June 3,1867 General James Longstreet addressed this, writing: "It is fair to assume that the strongest laws are those established by the sword."

 

[Piedone]

Name me one country where any group of people can secede and form their own country whenever they fell like it?
Leftyhunter

If I am correct this was a problem the Canadians faced - Lower Canada and Upper Canada wanted to split from each other at least once and the West also felt at least once it should become independent.
It might be a special problem to a rather uncommon form of government (which just didn't exist before 1776): a kind of federation of single states on their way to a "more perfect Union".
The EU in it's present state comes to one's mind - but admittedly I just know nothing about the details of the US constitution and it's development and hence cannot judge if there are similiarities or since when similarities ended and a "more perfect Union" was established.

 

[leftyhunter]

If I am correct this was a problem the Canadians faced - Lower Canada and Upper Canada wanted to split from each other at least once and the West also felt at least once it should become independent.
It might be a special problem to a rather uncommon form of government (which just didn't exist before 1776): a kind of federation of single states on their way to a "more perfect Union".
The EU in it's present state comes to one's mind - but admittedly I just know nothing about the details of the US constitution and it's development and hence cannot judge if there are similiarities or since when similarities ended and a "more perfect Union" was established.

The details were debated using Antebellum law in the US Supreme Court case of Texas v White in 1868. If secession was legal the secessionists would used the courts ti secede rather then direct violence. The EU is completely different in scope the the US Constitution.
Leftyhunter

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

If I am correct this was a problem the Canadians faced - Lower Canada and Upper Canada wanted to split from each other at least once and the West also felt at least once it should become independent.
It might be a special problem to a rather uncommon form of government (which just didn't exist before 1776): a kind of federation of single states on their way to a "more perfect Union".
The EU in it's present state comes to one's mind - but admittedly I just know nothing about the details of the US constitution and it's development and hence cannot judge if there are similiarities or since when similarities ended and a "more perfect Union" was established.

You gave a good example with the EU. Just think about it: BREXIT.

 

[JerryD]

If I am correct this was a problem the Canadians faced - Lower Canada and Upper Canada wanted to split from each other at least once and the West also felt at least once it should become independent.
It might be a special problem to a rather uncommon form of government (which just didn't exist before 1776): a kind of federation of single states on their way to a "more perfect Union".
The EU in it's present state comes to one's mind - but admittedly I just know nothing about the details of the US constitution and it's development and hence cannot judge if there are similiarities or since when similarities ended and a "more perfect Union" was established.

Speaking broadly, you kind of touched on the issue. The really ardent secessionists claimed that the US was in fact not a country, but an alliance of sovereign states, much like the EU is today. So there was no such thing as an American citizen or a country called the United States of America. Why this logic fails, though, is when you see all the powers granted to the federal government, and which were denied to the states. For starters, the Constitution through the Supremacy Clause made the Constitution and the laws passed under it supreme over state laws. Today this is the legal concept called Federal Pre-emption. The federal government was also given the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce, to conduct foreign affairs, to mint money, and to assure that each state had a republican form of government. In short, there are numerous sections of the Constitution that gives the Federal government power to overrule the states, so its hard to argue that the states were sovereign and the Federal government was merely a tool of the states.

One other difference worth noting. The EU provided an express mechanism for states to leave. The Constitution did not. Also, as I always point out, its difficult to imagine that a state had a right to leave when South Carolina decided the best way to accomplish this was by starting a war instead of going to court to have this implied right recognized by the Supreme Court. The mere fact they chose warfare over lawfare tells me they knew their argument held no weight and would be rejected by the courts, and thus no such right existed.

 

[rvbgrif]

who thought that they had the RIGHT to Voluntarily LEAVE the "United" States. When some of them tried to voluntarily leave

I think this answer, like most things, is rather complicated. When the US was first formed, the states were hesitant on how stable this union would be. As such, not only did they have a right to leave, they had a right to not participate.

With the drafting of the constitution, it was more apparent that the new federal government was supposed to be stronger, more perpetual, and capable of withstanding revolts.

However this all feeds into the question of whether the United States is a Union of States or One State with many parts. It certainly is One State today, but it didn't originate that way. This is important because everything is written from the perspective of the "United States", singular or plural.