Lincoln

[Horatius]

Did the North had the right to change the South thru laws or military action? To establish what is moral and right for others?

Absolutely they had the right and a moral obligation too,there was no moral equivalence at work here.The Constitution was changed to reflect this reality because the Constitution was flawed. These were not ancient peoples who knew no better, this happened a mere 70 years before the Third Reich. Not many romanticizes the Nazis racial theories today or suggest there should have been some kind of peaceful accommodation hoping they would change. Let's not kid ourselves the CSA and the culture behind it was evil, its very Raison d'

[Moonlapse]

Hey, I thought you were out Moonlapse !

Heheh, I am! I didn't discuss anything, I just posted some links.

[Faustus]

Read the last two sentences of of paragraph 29: http://www.bartelby.org/124/pres31.html

 

Lincoln is speaking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

 

It appears to me that the President, being inaugurated, following the secession of seven Southern states, at that moment was attempting to knit the country back together again.

 

Faustus

Edited March 25, 2008 by Faustus

[Julius Ratus]

The problem, JR, is that if you regard morality as subjective, then 'rights' are a meaningless concept. If you truly accept this premise, then you should expect our indifference when you are mugged. "Hey, maybe that's just your mugger's culture!"

 

In contrast, if you regard humans as moral ends in themselves--and not means to others' ends--then a basic syllogism follows: All humans possess certain unalienable rights; Africans are humans; therefore, Africans possess unalienable rights. Given that the whole function of the American government is to protect these rights, any American government that fails to do so--that makes slaves of its citizens--loses its legitimacy and is rightfully destroyed by Americans.

 

Now, as a subjectivist, what is your objection? If you were consistent, you shouldn't condemn the North at all. After all, maybe it's "just our culture" to insist on human rights.

 

First off, "rights" are not a meaningless concept, in our culture and government they are enshrined in law. Also, in the instance I were mugged, I would expect the law to come to my aide, because mugging is against the law. Better yet, I wish the law would allow me to see to my own defenses. Unfortunately, I must rely on the law to defend me since they won't let me do it myself. I don't ask for your sympathy, only that you don't stand between my pistol and the mugger.

 

I disagree with the North. I am human and have opinions and I don't believe that the Civil War was worth the 600,000 lives lost. Espescially since the African-Americans didn't have many rights until the 1960's anyway. BTW, when the former slaves got their rights is the 20th Century, it was not through bloodshed and war, but through legislation.

 

As a subjectivist I say, 'Vae Victus'. That is why I try to whine as little as possible about the South's defeat. I will still argue my position though (and if I come off as a whiner, I appologize, it is not my intent).

 

 

EDIT -- This can be a hot topic for some people. It is good that everyone who has posted so far has been courteous and have debated as civilized, intellegent individuals. Thank you all.

Edited March 25, 2008 by Julius Ratus

[sonic]

EDIT -- This can be a hot topic for some people. It is good that everyone who has posted so far has been courteous and have debated as civilized, intellegent individuals. Thank you all.

 

I fully agree with this sentiment.

 

As an Englishman I knew that the events of the 1860's caused a lot of ill-feeling that persists to this day. I didn't quite realise that the whole political question was as clouded as it has been portrayed - as I said in an earlier post, all I knew was the effect the war had on British industry and that a group of British workers had sided with the concept of freeing the slaves. In some ways I am a bit surprised that people still feel as strongly as they do, especially as the 'America' we tend to see abroad is one united in patriotism (the 'War on Terror' etc). However, I know I shouldn't be. The events of the English Civil War can still lead to rows, and that was fought in the 1640's!

 

The portrayal of Americans in news broadcasts and on normal television channels can lead to a belief in a 'monolithic' state where to disagree can be taken as unpatriotic and cause problems. The polite manner in which this subject has been discussed has really opened my eyes . That, plus watching 'The Daily Show'

 

As an ignorant foreigner can I ask a possibly 'naive' question?

 

The major world power at the time of the American Civil War was Britain. Was the decision to declare slavery illegal influenced at all by the North being worried about Britain? I remember reading somewhere (if only I could remember!) that either Lincoln or his advisors were scared in case the British allied themselves to the South. Although we had outlawed slavery etc years before, there was a chance that trade interests (ie cotton) might have seen Britain declaring war to protect her economy. The declaration of freedom for slaves made that impossible, as internal politics in Britain immediately meant that Britain must remain neutral.

 

Is there any truth in this, or is it just an old-wives tale?

[Primus Pilus]

Is there any truth in this, or is it just an old-wives tale?

 

Much like the colonies hoped for French intervention in the Revolution against Great Britain, the Confederate States hoped for European intervention in the American civil war. Both Great Britain and France had much to gain economically in a split of the states, but other than some clandestine aid, both were reluctant to get directly involved. Tension with Lincoln's federal government was real and can be illustrated in the "Trent Affair" of 1861. (The US capture of a British steamer transporting confederate envoys to Europe).

 

Ultimately British intervention started to materialize with some earnest in 1862 but the major Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg in the south) that ended in a bloody stalemate showed Europe that the war was nowhere near reaching a conclusion. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation shortly thereafter virtually hamstringing the diplomatic efforts of the Confederacy. Despite the fact that the Proclamation did virtually nothing (because the Union did not control the slavery states) it had the effect of swinging the political and public relations pendulum in its favor. European powers could not reasonably justify opposing a nation intending to eliminate slavery regardless of the merit behind it's initiation.

 

To be fair, British intervention never went much beyond the point of preliminary discussion among such leaders as Foreign Secretary Earl Russell, Prime Minister Lord Palmerston and Chancellor William Gladstone but Lincoln's proclamation eliminated the possibility of such discussion evolving into something much more. However, you might want to read more about those gentleman and the Trent Affair to better understand the perspective of your own nation at the time.

 

As for France... ultimately, they just wanted Mexico.

[Julius Ratus]

sonic -- As far as I had alwys heard, the main reason that Britain didn't join the war was that they wanted proof that the South could win the without the aid of British troops. The CSA had that chance at least three times: 1st Manassas (because they didn't use their victory), Antietam (because they lost), and Gettysburg (lost again).

 

-- EDIT -- PP beat me to it, for some reason his post didn't show up until this morning.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Julius Ratus

[Kosmo]

Thus all laws prohibiting kidnapping, torture, murder, and the rest would logically entail the abolition of slavery. Yes, it's true that some Southern aristocrats found nothing immoral with slavery--but they were pigs.

 

That will make pigs of most, if not all, civilisations for most of history. It will be a diferent thing if the southerners had invented slavery or were the only ones having it. But it was quite the contrary.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Thus all laws prohibiting kidnapping, torture, murder, and the rest would logically entail the abolition of slavery. Yes, it's true that some Southern aristocrats found nothing immoral with slavery--but they were pigs.

That will make pigs of most, if not all, civilisations for most of history.

 

Historically, slavery is not that as common as you think. But, you take my implication correctly--before the Stoics developed the concept of individual rights (and for a very long time after), most civilizations were piggish and had no idea that anything better was possible. By the 1860s, the South had no such excuse.

[Julius Ratus]

Were the Northerners any less piggish than the Southerners? In 1862 a war was fought between the Federals and the Dakota nation, who had attacked parts of Minnesota after repeated treaty violations on the part of the Government. After the war many Dakota were hung or interened. Eventually all Dakota were forced from Minnesota and bounties were put on their heads.

 

In the 'racist' Southern army, a Cherokee, Stand Watie, was made a General. How many Indians were Generals in the U. S. Army? How many Blacks were? How many Black people were even officers? As far as I heard they were all led by White officers. How many Jews held positions of authority in the North? Judah P. Benjamin was a member of the Cabinet in the CS.

 

Like Kosmo said, most of us are pigs. The North's anti-slavery pitch was just there to make them look good, to give their war of conquest a moral appearence.

[Primus Pilus]

All that aside, nobody has proven that secession was illegal, or that Lincoln actually acted inappropriately, once he was inaugurated. Despite the anti-slavery rhetoric of the Republican party, Lincoln was not president at the time of secession and made no claim that he would end slavery via illegal executive proclamation once in office. Despite perceived threats against various individual states rights, the southern stated seceded without such a legal right having been expressly granted in the constitution.

 

Secession and seizure of federal installations was an act of war and once again, Lincoln was left with 3 choices: ignore the Constitutional agreement between the states and allow secession, agree to disband the Union regardless of the Constitution based on the perceived rights granted in the original (but superseded) Articles of Confederation (even though most of the seceding states had not been a part of that agreement), or go to war for preservation of the original legal agreement.

 

Edit: by the by, I laid out my reasoning for the illegality of secession here. The original post was seemingly ignored or perhaps just summarily dismissed. A pox upon you all!

[Sequens]

Trying to figure out what caused the Civil War can be difficult. You can find speeches, events and laws that conflict and contradict and before you know it your wrapped around the axle...thump, thump, thump...

 

It might be compared to the weather, in that you can feel wind, rain, cold, heat; see clouds, lightning, sun; hear thunder, etc. And they often change quite frequently. Its sunny, no its raining, no its snowing... But these are often symtoms and effects of larger forces that creature the weather. For these you need to see satelitte and other pictures of the larger waves of cold and warm air.

 

For this question, I look to see what the real motive force behind it was. It seems very clear to me it was slavery. It was the basic element that was driving the North and South further apart.

 

Legislation and discussions had been tried for quite a few years, maybe decades prior, but did not succeed and the two sides became ever more polarized.

 

One big complication was how to end it (slavery). It seems to me no one could come up with a workable solution that did not include wrecking a large portion of the South's economy and creating 4 million possibly homeless unemployed people overnight. Even Lincoln, thinking slavery wrong, thought that they and the white citizens could not live together well and for a while advocated then shipping all the freed slaves to Liberia. The sides hardened, and of course made use of every possible legal and moral arguement that supported their view and finally came to blows. But I firmly think the right to secede was a secondary arguement only used when the South felt they had no other way to preserve the institution of slavery, which was also a large foundation of their economy and way of life.

[Julius Ratus]

Edit: by the by, I laid out my reasoning for the illegality of secession here. The original post was seemingly ignored or perhaps just summarily dismissed. A pox upon you all!

 

Hey! I read your post, so take your pox back, I'm getting itchy!

 

 

 

But anyway. I would say that the CS had the same rights to sucession that the 13 colonies had when they suceeded from Great Britain. To quote the DoI: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." (actually I am quoting MPC quoting the DoI, if it is misquoted blame him!).

 

The People of the 11 Southern states were exercising their right to abolish the Government and institute a new one.

 

The South had the same right to suceed from the US that the 13 colonies had to suceed from Britain. The difference was, the 13 Colonies won (with signifigant help from France), and the 11 States lost. That is the bottom line. Vae Victus.

[Primus Pilus]

The South had the same right to suceed from the US that the 13 colonies had to suceed from Britain. The difference was, the 13 Colonies won (with signifigant help from France), and the 11 States lost. That is the bottom line. Vae Victus.

 

Agreed, but there has been some contention that it was wrong for the north to respond to secession with war, simply because the southern states exercised a preference for independence. If there was no legal basis for secession under the constitutional agreement between the states, than Lincoln was really only acting as he duly should have. If the south won, then so be it, but his hand was forced.

[Sequens]

Edit: by the by, I laid out my reasoning for the illegality of secession here. The original post was seemingly ignored or perhaps just summarily dismissed. A pox upon you all!

 

This is one of those subjects people tend to come into with strong opinions & leave with the same. Skim the opposition and give your 2 cents worth. I kind of expect not to be read much in these fluries or see anyone change their view materially. Perhaps over time and multiple conversations someone might slowly change their prespective.

 

The pox part caught my sttention though!