Lincoln

[Julius Ratus]

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.

 

I agree, Lincoln's hand was forced, but does that put him in the right? It is the natural inclination of any leader to maintain the unity of his country. Why is it that Americans frequently support the position of the rebels except in this instance? To keep with my analogy, would you say the England was in the right in the Revolutionary War? Wasn't King George's hand forced? He had to maintain the union of the British Empire. If you agree with this and consider yourself on the side of the Loyalists, then I concede the argument. As long as both leaders are shown in the same light.

[Primus Pilus]

I agree, Lincoln's hand was forced, but does that put him in the right? It is the natural inclination of any leader to maintain the unity of his country. Why is it that Americans frequently support the position of the rebels except in this instance? To keep with my analogy, would you say the England was in the right in the Revolutionary War? Wasn't King George's hand forced? He had to maintain the union of the British Empire. If you agree with this and consider yourself on the side of the Loyalists, then I concede the argument. As long as both leaders are shown in the same light.

 

I agree that King George's (via Lords North and Germain) hand was forced and he had an objective right to attempt to stop the American rebels. The colonies had the fundamental right to demand representation and/or the fundamental right to declare independence. King George as sovereign of the British Empire (and again, along with his government) had the authority to resist such claims by virtue of established colonial charters.

 

In the same manner, I don't by any means discount the concerns of the southern states over the perception that their individual states rights were in danger. Ultimately, I do understand that they had a fundamental human right to secede and establish a self governance that fit their philosophy. However, Lincoln and the congress of the United States had the legal and constitutional duty according to the agreement between the states to oppose that secession regardless of whose interests were better suited (and he admittedly had the advantage of the moral ground that benefits him in posterity.)

 

For an analogy of my own... a slave had the fundamental human right to resist his master, while the master had the legal authority to control and punish his property for any such transgression. The difference is that the slave did not willingly enter into the contract with his master (in the vast majority of cases, there are exceptions such as indentured servitude). In contrast, the states of the union did willingly unify with written agreement and made no written basis for breaking the union other than the possibility that a majority of congressional vote (and/or the states) was required to alter the contract.

[Julius Ratus]

I agree that King George's (via Lords North and Germain) hand was forced and he had an objective right to attempt to stop the American rebels. The colonies had the fundamental right to demand representation and/or the fundamental right to declare independence. King George as sovereign of the British Empire (and again, along with his government) had the authority to resist such claims by virtue of established colonial charters.

 

In the same manner, I don't by any means discount the concerns of the southern states over the perception that their individual states rights were in danger. Ultimately, I do believe that they had a fundamental human right to secede and establish a self governance that fit their philosophy. However, Lincoln and the congress of the United States had the legal and constitutional duty according to the agreement between the states to oppose that secession regardless of whose interests were better suited (and he admittedly had the advantage of the moral ground that benefits him in posterity.)

 

Here we are in agreement. It seems we are agreeing to disagree, so to speak.

 

I have enjoyed this conversation, and am glad we were able to find common ground (something that dosen't seem to happen all too often in forum debates).

[Horatius]

In the same manner, I don't by any means discount the concerns of the southern states over the perception that their individual states rights were in danger. Ultimately, I do understand that they had a fundamental human right to secede and establish a self governance that fit their philosophy.

 

Anyone that wants to read more of these kind of justifications for what should be indefensible in excruciating detail can find much still. Might want to start with the opposition debate to the civil rights act of 1964 or that great statesman Orval Faubus, for modern examples. Like I said the mindset is still alive. The states rights concerns of the South were their fears that slavery would be abolished, that's it. That was also their noble 'philosophy' if you can call it that, this wasn't the second coming of the founding fathers after all. Most of us over a certain age have heard it all before ad nauseum hell, George Wallace received 10 million votes. Pointing out that the Indian wars were genocidal or that there were no black officers in the Federal army is apples and oranges. There were Jews in the Wehrmacht also, so what. The fact is northern society was not based on slavery and over the years actively fought it, slowly and unevenly to be sure but it or racism was not officially condoned. The South was entirely based,dependent and proselytized slavery and racism as a philosophy and way of life. It infected the whole nation. I think to give them any legitimacy whatsoever is absurd.

For an analogy of my own... a slave had the fundamental human right to resist his master, while the master had the legal authority to control and punish his property for any such transgression.

Actually it's better than that According to The State v. John Mann. 13 N.C. 263 1829 it was perfectly legal to murder your 'property' This can be used to justify more barbarism I suppose after all it's the law.

[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.

 

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.

 

Both South and North were thinking in the same piggish way at the moment 0, that of independance. Gradually the North "waked up" and changed his opinion on slavery while the South did not. In this marriagge the divergence developed gradually as one of the partners, the North, changed and wanted to change the other partener. Seing in the election of Lincoln that it cannot make a household toghether with the North, the South wanted a divorce. But this divorce was a reaction to a different North attitude not because something had changed in the South. Lincoln was a main trompet of the new voice of the North that had uppset the South.

[Primus Pilus]

In the same manner, I don't by any means discount the concerns of the southern states over the perception that their individual states rights were in danger. Ultimately, I do understand that they had a fundamental human right to secede and establish a self governance that fit their philosophy.

 

Anyone that wants to read more of these kind of justifications for what should be indefensible in excruciating detail can find much still. Might want to start with the opposition debate to the civil rights act of 1964 or that great statesman Orval Faubus, for modern examples. Like I said the mindset is still alive. The states rights concerns of the South were their fears that slavery would be abolished, that's it. That was also their noble 'philosophy' if you can call it that, this wasn't the second coming of the founding fathers after all. Most of us over a certain age have heard it all before ad nauseum hell, George Wallace received 10 million votes. Pointing out that the Indian wars were genocidal or that there were no black officers in the Federal army is apples and oranges. There were Jews in the Wehrmacht also, so what. The fact is northern society was not based on slavery and over the years actively fought it, slowly and unevenly to be sure but it or racism was not officially condoned. The South was entirely based,dependent and proselytized slavery and racism as a philosophy and way of life. It infected the whole nation. I think to give them any legitimacy whatsoever is absurd.

 

Why is self governance indefensible? My statement said nothing about slavery. In multiple posts throughout this thread, I've stated that slavery is wrong and that the northern states were morally justified in their stance against it. However, I do believe that each state has the fundamental (if not legal) right to declare their own course.

 

What's important to note is that the actions of declaring that course will have repercussions, such as being simply identified as immoral and unjust (in the case of slave owning states) or perhaps civil war in order to prevent such a course of action. I did not mean to justify the southern position, only to say that every state has the individual right to take that position. As always, there are consequences. You seem to think that I support the fundamental right of southern secession and the continuation of slavery rather than just understanding the position and their individual states right. In actuality, I wholeheartedly support the moral, ethical position of the north to oppose slavery and indeed the actual LEGAL right of the union to oppose secession.

 

While this may seem confusing, it's important to understand that understanding a position does not mean that one supports it.

 

For an analogy of my own... a slave had the fundamental human right to resist his master, while the master had the legal authority to control and punish his property for any such transgression.

Actually it's better than that According to The State v. John Mann. 13 N.C. 263 1829 it was perfectly legal to murder your 'property' This can be used to justify more barbarism I suppose after all it's the law.

 

What you failed to quote was my continuing statement that "The difference is that the slave did not willingly enter into the contract with his master". You incorrectly make the assumption that I am attempting to justify anything to do with slavery. You missed the point entirely that I was attempting to make and that is that the slave had no legal authority to do anything despite not himself entering into a legal contract. The southern states had some legal authorities and limits based on the constitutional agreement with the other states, but unlike the slave, they did willingly enter into that legal contract.

[Julius Ratus]

I'm not trying to discuss slavery here. I am trying to discuss the right of free people to self government. Lets just get it out of the way, SLAVERY IS BAD. There, I said it, you can imagine big tears pouring from my eyes as I say it if you wish.

 

That out of the way, I believe that people have the right to self government. So did the Founding Fathers, that's kind of why they revolted against England in the first place. I believe that the Southern States had the right to govern themselves after the Federal Government no longer lived up to their expectations. If the slaves had revolted under John Brown then I would philosophically support their right to self govenence, but they didn't. The South did. If you are not willing to fight for your freedom and independence, then I have news that might upset some of you out there. You will cease having it! Some people out there, like the Spartans at Thermopylae are willing to die for their independence. The people of the South were willing to die for their independence. I don't buy for one second that Lincoln drafted thousands of men to go down and die simply to free the slaves, since obviously the slaves were not willing to fight en masse for their own freedom (yes, there were ex-slaves who fought for the North, but only after they had been liberated by the Federal Army).

 

Here is my position, in one neat sentence. The People have the right to self government, provided that they are willing to fight, and if need be to die, to preserve this right.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Julius Ratus

[Sequens]

I'm not trying to discuss slavery here. I am trying to discuss the right of free people to self government. Lets just get it out of the way, SLAVERY IS BAD. There, I said it, you can imagine big tears pouring from my eyes as I say it if you wish.

 

Here is my position, in one neat sentence. The People have the right to self government, provided that they are willing to fight, and if need be to die, to preserve this right.

 

I agree with both of those independently.

 

In a recent history textbook teacher guide, its says that in class discussions of whether the South had the right to secede, the classes normally come to the conclusion that they did, and in many personnel discussions I also find the same opinion expressed. People generally make the comparison that if the colonies could secede from Britain, then the south should have been able to secede. Most, myself included are not familiar with, nor really understand the many legal arguements involved.

 

But in 1861 of course, the two issues were connected. I have believed that it was simply a matter of the Slavery issue trumping the Secession issue. I have said if the South had no slavery, it would not have seceded and if it had anyway, the North would not have stopped it. I should qualify that I think. If the South had seceded into a relatively similiar form of government, the North without the moral imperative that slavery provided would probably had let them go.

 

But if the South had tried to form a type of government too different from the original, say something like Communism, the North may have opposed it with force.

 

One remaining question is whether the North was trully impelled primarily by moral reasons (abolition) or other reasons (perserving the Union, retaining power, secretly hating the south, etc.) ? Or put another way was the North using slavery as an excuse to perserve power, or was the South using the Right to secede as an excuse to retain slavery ?

 

That is I think hard to determine and I suspect all those conditions probably exsisted simultaneously.

 

One thought expressed here was it could have been done (emancipation) better, more peacefully, etc. And I had never even considered it before. But I have now, at least a little. I don't think it would have been possible to do it easier, as long as the bulk of slave owners did not want to give it up. Discussions only lead to disputes and eventually to hostilities.

 

One thing I have found studying northern civil war soldiers, was that 'Preserving the Union' was at least as likely to be the reason they fought as freeing slaves. Many Billy Yanks were ambiguous or even hostile to the idea of emancipation or even having black union regiments. The war itself provided some transformations however. A very important one in the soldiers eye's being that once the Black regiments were formed and proved themselves servicable the white soldiers warmed to the idea of them stopping bullets otherwise aimed at them. Once you fight for something in essence you earn it, which brings me back to one of the quoted statements.

 

My overall view is that both parties were wrong in one thing and right in another. Both sides fought like hell, and although professionals called them 'Armed Mobs', by the 3rd year they were as good soldiers as any anywhere. Almost too good, in that they would not give up until one side was shattered.

 

My sum up would be: I think the South had the right to its freedom, but not at the expense of someone elses.

[Primus Pilus]

But in 1861 of course, the two issues were connected. I have believed that it was simply a matter of the Slavery issue trumping the Secession issue. I have said if the South had no slavery, it would not have seceded and if it had anyway, the North would not have stopped it. I should qualify that I think. If the South had seceded into a relatively similiar form of government, the North without the moral imperative that slavery provided would probably had let them go.

 

But if the South had tried to form a type of government too different from the original, say something like Communism, the North may have opposed it with force.

 

One remaining question is whether the North was trully impelled primarily by moral reasons (abolition) or other reasons (perserving the Union, retaining power, secretly hating the south, etc.) ? Or put another way was the North using slavery as an excuse to perserve power, or was the South using the Right to secede as an excuse to retain slavery ?

 

In my opinion, the union was not going to allow a single or group of states to secede unmolested at this time or any time, regardless of the slavery issue. The reasons why the union wouldn't allow the secession of the south is multi-faceted and includes (in no particular order) economics, territorial sovereignty (or imperial designs for those of you of that mind set), unity against international influence (especially Europe), the preservation of the legal arrangement between the states (the constitution), acting against the precedent that could have evolved into a complete and permanent dissolution of the union, etc.

 

By the by, people often refer to past threats of secession by states (such as the New England states over the Louisiana Purchase) as proof that the right to secession was a given. However, a threat of secession is not nearly the same as actually doing it. Ultimately, the southern states hoped that the threat of secession would implore their northern neighbors to give in to their political "demands" for lack of a better term. When the threat failed, unlike the 5 threatened instances of the New England states (the Louisiana Purchase, the Embargo Act, the admission of Louisiana as a state, the War of 1812, and over the annexation of Texas) the south actually went through with it. Certainly it was something that was regularly discussed at least until after the Civil War, but the union was never required to ultimately declare whether secession was legal or accepted as a right of a state under the existing constitution, until a state or group of states actually went through with it.

 

Just as any state can declare its independence at any moment so too can any of us can declare ourselves independent of our government. While the state would face resistance of that declaration via the force of arms, the individual might face legal prosecution for failure to pay taxes and other such "crimes" of their stated independence (provided they continued to live within the territory of their previous nation).

[Julius Ratus]

Sequens, here's another question for consideration. How free were the Blacks after the war? Sure they could vote, if they didn't get lynched by the Klan. Sure, many of them did get elected to office after the war, only because the majority of the people were disenfranchised during Reconstruction. Because of the North playing the Slavery card, many of the Southerners began resenting and hating the Blacks because they were blamed for the war. Which in turn led to many Blacks resenting and hating the White people, just listen to Obama's friend Wright, or to Loius Farrakhan. All that saying the Civil War was about slavery has accomplished, is that it has shifted the blame from the Government and Lincoln, over to the people who suffered the most.

 

Black people in America didn't really become free, in the fullest sense of the word, until the 1960's. IMHO, the Civil War did not free the slaves, the Civil Rights Movement did.

 

 

Another argument against the war being about slavery. Many Confederates were opposed to Slavery, most notably General Robert E. Lee. Men like him thought slavery to be evil, but tyrrany and waging war on one's own people to be worse. He fought the North grugingly, but his duty was to his people in Virginia.

[sonic]

It is possible to simplify the causes of the English Civil War. It was a fairly straightforward affair: either the King was appointed by God and could do as he pleased, or Parliament, acting as God's agent, had the right to depose him. But even at the end, when he was beheaded, many Parliamentarians did not approve of executing a man possibly appointed by God. It should also be remembered that Cromwell was a Christian - a Puritan who abolished Christmas as 'too frivolous' - so the fact that he may have been leaning towards Catholicism also helped. Basically, though, the whole war was fought over who had control: King or Parliament. Although it was vicious and split families apart, the reasons for the conflict were simple in essence.

 

The above posts show that the American Civil War was anything but simple. From what I can gather, the South decided to secede from the Union, mainly because the trend in US politics was towards centralisation and they wanted to retain control of their own affairs. Although some in the South opposed slavery, they didn't believe that the central government had the right to impose its will on them. This was reinforced because many of the richer and more powerful people were plantation owners who realised that, given the views of Europe on slavery, it would only be a short time before the abolitionists had enough power to promote abolition. They would lose the source of their wealth.

 

The question then became a legal one: did the secessionsts have the right to secede? From what I can gather, the legal issue is dubious and both sides have their points. Whether the issue could have been decided in court is unknown: after the secession of South Carolina, a small Northern military force 'took refuge' in Fort Sumter. They refused to abandon their position, and attempts were made to reinforce and re-supply the 'garrison'. The attempt was blocked and the 'Star of the West' was fired on, beginning the war.

 

Lincoln's part in this was not his personal actions but the nature of his campaign. It was believed that he was running on a 'free-slaves' ticket, reinforced by his humble upbringings: 'even a poor free man could become President'. He won due to his popularity in the North.

 

At the firing of shots at Fort Sumter, war began but Lincoln ordered troops to intervene across the US, causing more States to secede.

 

Is it possible to answer the original question posed in this thread? After following this (very interesting!) thread I would propose the following:

 

Lincoln's presence in the election helped to escalate the speed of secession and, after that, war was inevitable, due to the politics he endorsed before the war. He didn't control or attempt to control events, instead being swept along with them. His early decisions in some ways made things worse. However, many of his speeches and his overall conduct during the war, plus his being the focus of the non-secessionist concept, helped to cement opinion (at least in the North) of a good politician. However he is viewed as a great statesman mainly because in his presidency slavery was abolished.

 

Is this a view that gets 'general' agreement, despite the fact that it is an over-simplification or have I missed something here?

Edited March 27, 2008 by sonic

[Primus Pilus]

Lincoln's presence in the election helped to escalate the speed of secession and, after that, war was inevitable, due to the politics he endorsed before the war. He didn't control or attempt to control events, instead being swept along with them. His early decisions in some ways made things worse. However, many of his speeches and his overall conduct during the war, plus his being the focus of the non-secessionist concept, helped to cement opinion (at least in the North) of a good politician. However he is viewed as a great statesman mainly because in his presidency slavery was abolished.

 

Is this a view that gets 'general' agreement, despite the fact that it is an over-simplification or have I missed something here?

 

Simplified? Sure, but when factoring a reason for fame, a simplification might be all that's necessary.

 

I might only add that Lincoln is not only famous because it is he who issued the proclamation, but also because it was his administration that did ultimately hold the union together in the face of a true crisis. Whether folks view that as good or bad is irrelevant for why he is famous, but the resulting debate based on personal beliefs does add to that level of fame (or infamy as the case may be), and the discussion in this thread shows a keen level of interest in the topic.

 

Notice we don't have such discussions over relatively obscure figures as Chester Arthur or Rutherford B. Hayes.

[Julius Ratus]

sonic -- There's the best summary of the causes of the Civil War that I have read in a long while. Heck, I'm not even going to add anything.

[Sequens]

Rutherford B. Hayes.

 

Now I did read Ruthers collected asphalt. But not much is to be made of that.

 

I see validity in both sonic's and cosmo's summaries. The divorce analogy is interesting.

 

Ratus, I have seen the racial strife that continue's to this day. Boy have I seen it, particularly during those 60's. Felt it too. I atribute more then one assault's on my person to racial causes. But I have witnessed it going both ways and I do not like it at all ever.

 

But I really do not know if it is ever easy, or even could be easy. Most things I see in history go along similiar lines of where differences exsist conflicts flourish. But I do not think it is hopeless. In cerstain circumstances the barriers do come down and there is mutual respect. Probably the most dramatic example for me was my time in military basic training. First off I thought I had joined the wrong Air Force. I was one of about 10 Northerners with 40 Southerners that seemed to speak something like English! Even my recruiter warned me if I did not remembered anything else, to remember to never say I was from New York. Seriously though, we had northern and southern blacks, whites, hispanics and a few others & when we were done, the 40 or so left were closer then any mixed group I have ever seen. It was like the past was forgotten and having to work together to get thru the most difficult thing we had seen, we only went by what you did today, and we did not want to let each other down.

[Kosmo]

Lincoln's presence in the election helped to escalate the speed of secession and, after that, war was inevitable, due to the politics he endorsed before the war. He didn't control or attempt to control events, instead being swept along with them. His early decisions in some ways made things worse. However, many of his speeches and his overall conduct during the war, plus his being the focus of the non-secessionist concept, helped to cement opinion (at least in the North) of a good politician. However he is viewed as a great statesman mainly because in his presidency slavery was abolished.

 

Is this a view that gets 'general' agreement, despite the fact that it is an over-simplification or have I missed something here?

 

Simplified? Sure, but when factoring a reason for fame, a simplification might be all that's necessary.

 

I might only add that Lincoln is not only famous because it is he who issued the proclamation, but also because it was his administration that did ultimately hold the union together in the face of a true crisis. Whether folks view that as good or bad is irrelevant for why he is famous, but the resulting debate based on personal beliefs does add to that level of fame (or infamy as the case may be), and the discussion in this thread shows a keen level of interest in the topic.

 

Notice we don't have such discussions over relatively obscure figures as Chester Arthur or Rutherford B. Hayes.

 

A good summary, but I have to add that someones fame as a firefighter it's not deserved when he was one of those who started the fire in the first place.