Was the American Civil War inevitable?

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

What are you talking about? One attempts to explain why the North went to war, the other to explain why the South went to war. How would they form a counter argument? I believe you may be confused.

The one that pretends to explain why the North went to war, however, is simply bullshit from a supporter of the South pretending to speak for the North.

I am gald for you that you have found one speech and a couple of cherry-picked editorials that make the spurious claim that the North went to war for economic reasons. Unfortunately, those reasons are ad hoc and are drowned out by the overwhelming number of speeches, editorials, and other information that demonstrate that the political leaders of the North and the populace of the North were pretty strongly unified by the notion that the South was breaking the union and that such an act was intolerable. There were also several regions in the South, (notably the northwest section of Virginia, the eastern section of Tennessee, and the northeast corner of Alabama), who resisted secession, but who should have been strictly aligned with the South if the issue was purely economic.

As I noted, Vallandigham got his basic facts wrong on multiple issues, so there is no reason to believe that he actually had a clue in regard to what he was saying.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Provide evidence that he North had other reasons for going to war. It's a question I've asked up thread and got no response.

Probably, no one thought you were serious. The North went to war to preserve the union. The actions of the South were seen as treasonous and, to a certain extent, insulting. They were claiming to secede to preserve slavery when only a tiny handful of Abolitionists, (who did not have the support of any major political party), were agitating against slavery and Northerners found it spiteful to wreck the country to preserve something that Northerners, by and large, did not believe was under attack.

[WillFarnaby]

First of all, Vallandigham was subsequently nominated as the Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio in 1863 (though he lost in a landslide). Also, he was heavily involved in the party's presidential convention in '64 and his peace plank was passed. To characterize him as a "loon", "fringe", and "disgraced" is either wrong or dishonest. There was obviously a contingent that supported his views.

On the tariff:

... the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions."

On 18 March, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now "the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...."

Charles Dickens' magazine in 1861: "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"

From wikipedia: (emphasis my own)

Robert Barnwell Rhett similarly railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention. Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.


And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.[22]

Abolitionist Orestes Brownson (emphasis my own)

Our commercial cities had become almost completely southernized in their views of slavery, and opposition to the existence of slavery, or even to its extension into new territory, has had very little influence with the merchants of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, and the interests of trade, far more than patriotism or loyalty, have moved them to support the administration in suppressing the rebellion. The Morrill tariff moved them more than the fall of Sumter. The commercial class in no country and in no age is remarkable for patriotism, and finds usually its country where its profits are largest, or best secured, ft with us seeks to preserve the integrity of the Union, for if that should be lost, they would lose a large portion of their trade.

[Little Nemo]

I have my doubts that this will work but I'll be able to say I tried.

Here's a link to the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States. These are the official public statements that the seceding states issued at the time they were seceding in which they explained the reasons they were seceding. So on the subject of why the southern states seceded, this is the Word of God.

Now go to that page and use your word search function. Look for the word "tariff". How many times do you find it mentioned?

Now search for the word "slave". How many times do you find that mentioned?

SPOILER:

The answers are zero and eighty-two.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I have my doubts that this will work but I'll be able to say I tried.

Here's a link to the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States. These are the official public statements that the seceding states issued at the time they were seceding in which they explained the reasons they were seceding. So on the subject of why the southern states seceded, this is the Word of God.

Now go to that page and use your word search function. Look for the word "tariff". How many times do you find it mentioned?

Now search for the word "slave". How many times do you find that mentioned?

SPOILER:

The answers are zero and eighty-two.

Maybe you ignored this part?

Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.

Anyway, this only explains why the states seceded, not why there was a war. The North could have let the states secede. They didn't for economic reasons. The subject of this thread is whether or not the CW was inevitable. I believe it wasn't inevitable, the Union could have let the states secede, but they did not.

[WillFarnaby]

From Little Nemo's own cite in which he claims the declarations of secession make no reference to tariffs:

From the Georgia declaration, on the Republican party:

While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges

Sounds like tariff talk to me.

Also from the same cite:

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I have my doubts that this will work but I'll be able to say I tried.

The patient is still dead, but let the record show that you administered the medication.

[Little Nemo]

I said I didn't have much hope.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I said I didn't have much hope.

Ok i'll try again. It seems like you don't want to read anything more than a sentence long so i'll try to oblige and highlight the key parts:


The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

[Little Nemo]

If only we had some clue as to what the causes of secession where.

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Some clue.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Some little hint.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

But I guess we'll never know what their reasons were.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I said I didn't have much hope.

Care to address the content at all, even a little bit? Come on you can do it. I find it disheartening that your research methods rely on "ctrl F"

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

If only we had some clue as to what the causes of secession where.Some clue.Some little hint.
But I guess we'll never know what their reasons were.

I guess you missed the part where they state that it was through anti-slavery movement they hoped to reinstitute the tariff? If so you have missed the most important part of the document. The authors were most definitely afraid of the Republican Party's opposition to slavery, but they were also keen to the reasons why this opposition was exploited. Economy, sir.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

If only we had some clue as to what the causes of secession where.Some clue.Some little hint.

Why am I reminded of Robert L Fish's "Schlock Homes" parodies, where one of the recurring gags was 1)a presentation of blindingly obvious clues, which 2)Homes would proceed to interpret in some absurdly counterintuitive manner?

But I guess we'll never know what their reasons were.

If only we had two historical examples -- one of a secession threat provoked by a tariff and one of a secession threat provoked by the election of an slavery-unsympathetic President -- and could see which one fizzled out and which one led to war....

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

If only we had two historical examples -- one of a secession threat provoked by a tariff and one of a secession threat provoked by the election of an slavery-unsympathetic President -- and could see which one fizzled out and which one led to war....

Yes every time something similar happens, the same result must follow.

A guy beats his wife on monday. She threatens to leave, but does not.

He beats her again on thursday, she leaves.

Guy: "There must be some other reason she left, I beat her on monday but she didn't leave."

^Plausible reasoning to Steve MB. Crock of bullshit to every other living being.

[saoirse]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

What are you talking about? One attempts to explain why the North went to war, the other to explain why the South went to war. How would they form a counter argument? I believe you may be confused.

What are you talking about? They bombarded a US military installation, an act of treason. What sort of nation are you supposing, that allows an act of terrorism like that to stand?

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by saoirse

What are you talking about? They bombarded a US military installation, an act of treason. What sort of nation are you supposing, that allows an act of terrorism like that to stand?

What sort of nation allows a hostile fort in her waterways? It was no longer necessary for the Union to protect SC, so why did they arm a fort there?

[saoirse]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

What sort of nation allows a hostile fort in her waterways? It was no longer necessary for the Union to protect SC, so why did they arm a fort there?

Good question. Here's a similar one: Why would the United States maintain a coaling station in the Caribbean in 1962? Their ships didn't use coal anymore. So if I understand your argument, you would say that the Castro government would be justified in bombarding a US facility as well. For that matter, Japan could well have been justified in doing so in 1941.

But to answer your question, the US had a military installation near Charleston because Charleston was part of the United States, whose borders were established by treaties which were subsequently ratified by the Senate and signed by the President, and so were the law of the land. The borders of the United States could only be changed by Congress, regardless what a group of traitors thought.

[Oldeb]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

First of all, Vallandigham was subsequently nominated as the Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio in 1863 (though he lost in a landslide). Also, he was heavily involved in the party's presidential convention in '64 and his peace plank was passed. To characterize him as a "loon", "fringe", and "disgraced" is either wrong or dishonest. There was obviously a contingent that supported his views.

How does a small, vocal contingent of followers (the aforementioned Copperheads) and two overwhelming losses in both post-Sumter elections not define fringe group? What more could the majority of voters have done to convince you that they didn't agree with Vallandigham? Kick him out of Union controlled territory? Oh, wait. They actually did that.

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

I believe it wasn't inevitable, the Union could have let the states secede, but they did not.

As Little Nemo noted early on in the thread, it's easy to avoid a war when one side doesn't show up. You might as well point out that the Battle of Hasting wouldn't have occurred if King Harold had just given his country to the Normans. To repeat his question, why didn't the South just avoid seceding and prevent the war? To repeat my question, are you somehow incapable of seeing the USA as a single entity?

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

What sort of nation allows a hostile fort in her waterways? It was no longer necessary for the Union to protect SC, so why did they arm a fort there?

You seem confused. The seceding States were never a nation. We quite literally had a war over this point, and it was most definitively settled at a court house in Appomattox. They were in fact taking up arms against their own country, the USA.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Crock of bullshit to every other living being.

I only see one person here whose arguments are being generally rejected as a crock of bullshit, and his initials are WF. (Apparently the "T" got lost somewhere in the intertubes.)

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Oldeb

How does a small, vocal contingent of followers (the aforementioned Copperheads) and two overwhelming losses in both post-Sumter elections not define fringe group? What more could the majority of voters have done to convince you that they didn't agree with Vallandigham? Kick him out of Union controlled territory? Oh, wait. They actually did that.

So his opinions, which are substantiated by other sources I have provided, are void because he lost elections? He was influential in his party. That removes "fringe" from his description.

As Little Nemo noted early on in the thread, it's easy to avoid a war when one side doesn't show up. You might as well point out that the Battle of Hasting wouldn't have occurred if King Harold had just given his country to the Normans. To repeat his question, why didn't the South just avoid seceding and prevent the war? To repeat my question, are you somehow incapable of seeing the USA as a single entity?

Are you somehow incapable of seeing the USA as a union of states?

You seem confused. The seceding States were never a nation. We quite literally had a war over this point, and it was most definitively settled at a court house in Appomattox. They were in fact taking up arms against their own country, the USA.

If they were still part of the U.S., why were they not afforded representation in congress? The answer is because they were seceding, as was their right, and formed a seperate government.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

I only see one person here whose arguments are being generally rejected as a crock of bullshit, and his initials are WF. (Apparently the "T" got lost somewhere in the intertubes.)

I'm merely presenting the evidence for my side of the argument. Using mostly primary sources from the era, I have made my case. You have presented jokes and an argument that was dispatched with one post; afterwards, you responded with a less funny joke.

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Anyway, this only explains why the states seceded, not why there was a war. The North could have let the states secede.

The South could have not opened fire on Fort Sumter. I think that pretty well explains why there was a war.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

So his opinions, which are substantiated by other sources I have provided, are void because he lost elections?

Losing elections, by definition, proves that he did not represent the views of the nation.

He was influential in his party. That removes "fringe" from his description.

This definition leads to absurd results (e.g. it excludes Birther crackpots from the description "fringe"), and is therefore rejected.

Are you somehow incapable of seeing the USA as a union of states?

Yes -- a UNION. Traitors tried to break the union, they got shut down (and treated with remarkable mercy compared to the usual punishments meted out for treason).

If they were still part of the U.S., why were they not afforded representation in congress?

Their elected representatives refused to show up for work. Anyone who felt unrepresented should have taken it up with them.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

Losing elections, by definition, proves that he did not represent the views of the nation.

He lost elections, so it follows that he was wrong about the intentions of Northern war hawks? No you are wrong.

This definition leads to absurd results (e.g. it excludes Birther crackpots from the description "fringe"), and is therefore rejected.

When Birthers get a plank passed at the convention come talk to me until then you are wrong.

Yes -- a UNION. Traitors tried to break the union, they got shut down (and treated with remarkable mercy compared to the usual punishments meted out for treason).

Unions can't be broken? Ok I'll take your word for it.

Their elected representatives refused to show up for work. Anyone who felt unrepresented should have taken it up with them.

This doesn't explain why they weren't afforded representation after the war when extra-constitutional requirements were set before they could be represented.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

I guess you missed the part where they state that it was through anti-slavery movement they hoped to reinstitute the tariff? If so you have missed the most important part of the document. The authors were most definitely afraid of the Republican Party's opposition to slavery, but they were also keen to the reasons why this opposition was exploited. Economy, sir.

Was the Missouri Compromise about the tariff? Was the fighting and bloodshed in Kansas about the tariff?
What do you think the South feared the most - an increase in the tariff, which could be easily reversed, or the banning of slavery, which could not be? Which do you think threatened their way of life more?

[silenus]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

If they were still part of the U.S., why were they not afforded representation in congress? The answer is because they were seceding, as was their right, and formed a seperate government.

The bolded part is where you go off the rails every time. You are wrong, you will always be wrong. The states did not, do not, nor will they ever have the "right to secede." Period.

[XT]

Originally Posted by silenus

The bolded part is where you go off the rails every time. You are wrong, you will always be wrong. The states did not, do not, nor will they ever have the "right to secede." Period.

Well...it was a gray area until the Civil War pretty much settled the question. Before that there seems to have been a presumption that (formerly sovereign) states COULD leave the Union just as they had joined it, but it was never really put to the test until the CW pretty much settled the question. At least that's what my history prof always contended...which, according to him, was why no one in the Southern government was tried for treason. I do know that original Articles of Confederation (IIRC) that the original 13 colonies subscribed to had a large number of states withdrawing from several years after it was first ratified, and that there wasn't anything in the original Constitution that specified that membership was permanent...and, I believe that was by design, since a lot of states (who were sovereign before hand) might have balked at joining a union they couldn't leave at a later time.

Of course, this is all moot now, since the Civil War pretty much settled this question once and for all.

-XT

[MEBuckner]

Originally Posted by XT

I do know that original Articles of Confederation (IIRC) that the original 13 colonies subscribed to had a large number of states withdrawing from several years after it was first ratified, and that there wasn't anything in the original Constitution that specified that membership was permanent...and, I believe that was by design, since a lot of states (who were sovereign before hand) might have balked at joining a union they couldn't leave at a later time.

The only thing that could be described as states leaving the Articles of Confederation was when a bunch of them got together to set up a stronger federal government (that is, the current Constitution). Incidentally, the Articles of Confederation talked about a "Confederation and perpetual Union" between the thirteen states, for what that's worth. (And the current Constitution mentions a "more perfect Union".)

[Lumpy]

Nationalism or economic self-interest aside, the pragmatic answer to why the North contested secession is simply that no government can ever- for any reason good, bad, or indifferent- acquiesce to a diminishment of it's authority, short of absolute defeat. A government that cannot or will not enforce it's will is a nonentity.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Care to address the content at all, even a little bit? Come on you can do it.

Okay, if you insist.

You are wrong. You are absolutely and completely and totally wrong. Everything you have said in this thread is wrong. What you have posted here demonstrates a profound ignorance of history, economics, politics, law, and military science.

There. I think I've addressed everything you've written.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Yes every time something similar happens, the same result must follow.

A guy beats his wife on monday. She threatens to leave, but does not.

He beats her again on thursday, she leaves.

Guy: "There must be some other reason she left, I beat her on monday but she didn't leave."

^Plausible reasoning to Steve MB. Crock of bullshit to every other living being.

Pardon me, but isn't this exactly the same logic you use to argue that, because other nations ended slavery peacefully, the South would have eventually ended it peacefully, too?

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by blood63

Was there any talk of letting the South just walk away?

Well, it couldn't, because land can't walk. And as long as you have a slave country sharing a very long border with a free country, and the free country refuses to return escaped slaves (and it would be reprehensible not to refuse), it looks like they'll go to war sooner or later anyway.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

First of all, Vallandigham was subsequently nominated as the Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio in 1863 (though he lost in a landslide). Also, he was heavily involved in the party's presidential convention in '64 and his peace plank was passed. To characterize him as a "loon", "fringe", and "disgraced" is either wrong or dishonest. There was obviously a contingent that supported his views.

Yes, a fringe contingent.

You continue to use the quotations of Southerners and Southern sympathizers railing against, (or special pleading against), the North to make your claim for what motivated the North to reject secession and go to war to prevent it. This is rather like quoting segregationists in the 1960s to discover what motivated integrationists to "invade" the South, instead of looking at the words of the people who actually worked within the Civil Rights movement to discover their motivations.

Southerners could be as mad a they wished about tariffs, but using their words to identify the source of Northern motivation is nonsense. If you want to persuade us that the North only held onto the South for purely economic reasons, then you need to provide us with the words of Lincoln, Greeley, Seward, Chase (of the Treasury), Vanderbilt, Gould, Fiske, Cooke, Drexel, and others declaiming or discussing the economic hardship that secession would inflict on the North--as well as showing that that hardship, and not dissolution of the union, was the most important aspect of their concerns.

[XT]

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

The only thing that could be described as states leaving the Articles of Confederation was when a bunch of them got together to set up a stronger federal government (that is, the current Constitution).

Yes, exactly. My point was simply that the precedent was there, and while you are quite correct that they did so to form a stronger union (a 'more perfect union'), afaik there was no specific language forbidding a state from withdrawing...though the implication certainly seemed to be that they wouldn't. It was a question though, and one that was only completely settled by the Civil War and it's outcome.

Incidentally, the Articles of Confederation talked about a "Confederation and perpetual Union" between the thirteen states, for what that's worth. (And the current Constitution mentions a "more perfect Union".)

Well, my recollection might be faulty then...my understanding was that it was that there was some question and doubt about whether states could leave the union of states, but if your quote 'Confederation and perpetual Union' is correct that seems to leave little room for ambiguity.

-XT

[Ibn Warraq]

People ought to remember that the Confederates didn't refer to "the Tariff Republicans" but to "the Black Republicans."


Similarly let's remember that Alexander Stephens, the Confederate Vice President, when he made is famous "cornerstone" speech at the Confederate Convention didn't refer to "no tariffs" as the cornerstone of their civilization, but referred to "slavery" as the cornerstone of their civilization.

[tomndebb]

For those of you attacking WillFarnaby's statements on the grounds that the South seceded to support slavery, please note that he has not argued the opposite.

While I think he has utterly failed to establish his point, I will note that he has been addressing the issue of why the North refused to permit secession. Even though he is completely wrong, pointing to the actions of the South is a straw man argument, since he is not addressing that issue.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Yes, a fringe contingent.

You continue to use the quotations of Southerners and Southern sympathizers railing against, (or special pleading against), the North to make your claim for what motivated the North to reject secession and go to war to prevent it. This is rather like quoting segregationists in the 1960s to discover what motivated integrationists to "invade" the South, instead of looking at the words of the people who actually worked within the Civil Rights movement to discover their motivations.

Southerners could be as mad a they wished about tariffs, but using their words to identify the source of Northern motivation is nonsense. If you want to persuade us that the North only held onto the South for purely economic reasons, then you need to provide us with the words of Lincoln, Greeley, Seward, Chase (of the Treasury), Vanderbilt, Gould, Fiske, Cooke, Drexel, and others declaiming or discussing the economic hardship that secession would inflict on the North--as well as showing that that hardship, and not dissolution of the union, was the most important aspect of their concerns.

On the other hand, is it legitimate to assume that people will always put their case forward in the best possible light, and that only their opponents will speak the cynical truth about their true motives? In other words, is what C.S. Lewis coined the word "Bulverism" to describe sometimes correct?

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

For those of you attacking WillFarnaby's statements on the grounds that the South seceded to support slavery, please note that he has not argued the opposite.

While I think he has utterly failed to establish his point, I will note that he has been addressing the issue of why the North refused to permit secession. Even though he is completely wrong, pointing to the actions of the South is a straw man argument, since he is not addressing that issue.

Yes, except that as we've pointed out to Will, it was the Confederacy not the United States that started the war. So it's southern motivations that are the key factor in the causes of the civil war.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Yes, except that as we've pointed out to Will, it was the Confederacy not the United States that started the war. So it's southern motivations that are the key factor in the causes of the civil war.

By attempting to reapply Fort Sumter, Lincoln was refusing to accept the legitimacy of the Confederacy. Reapplying a fort in foreign territory was perceived as a hostile action and the South took necessary defensive action.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

By attempting to reapply Fort Sumter, Lincoln was refusing to accept the legitimacy of the Confederacy. Reapplying a fort in foreign territory was perceived as a hostile action and the South took necessary defensive action.

Even if South Carolina and the other southern states did have the right to unilaterally secede (which they didn't) Fort Sumter has still the property of the United States of America. If the Confederacy starts shooting at American soldiers in an American fort, it's an act of war just as if Canada or Mexico did it.

A country refusing to accept your legitimacy is a diplomatic issue not a cause for war. The United States didn't recognize the Soviet Union until 1933. It didn't recognize the People's Republic of China until 1979. But this didn't lead to war.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

By attempting to reapply Fort Sumter, Lincoln was refusing to accept the legitimacy of the Confederacy.

Nonsense. By this "logic", every supply delivery to Gitmo is a rejection of the legitimacy of the Cuban government.

[Oldeb]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

By attempting to reapply Fort Sumter, Lincoln was refusing to accept the legitimacy of the Confederacy.

"Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." - John Harrington

Finally. Finally, you have stumbled across the reason the North was fighting. If it makes you feel better you can even say that it was complete "bigger stick" tactics and just because they won they got to write the rules. Might makes right in this case. Over a million people died over whether the seceding States were a real country or just rebels taking up arms against their fellow countrymen. It was settled. The Confederacy was never a real country. It received no international recognition and it held no territory as a separate sovereign entity. The United States couldn't take foreign action there because it was never foreign. It is and always was part of the United States of America, even if the people living there tried to pretend otherwise for a while.

[Musicat]

Hindsight is, of course, always 20-20. In the long run, it was good the Union was preserved.

But I can't help but wonder just why it was so godawful important to preserve the Union at the extreme cost that eventually resulted? Why didn't the North just accept the fact that some states didn't agree, and let them do their own thing? They wouldn't have been prevented from future persuasion in a democratic manner. The North wouldn't have had to raise an army and take a risk that they lost and the South would have been satisfied with succession and co-existence, at least for a while.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Musicat

Hindsight is, of course, always 20-20. In the long run, it was good the Union was preserved.

But I can't help but wonder just why it was so godawful important to preserve the Union at the extreme cost that eventually resulted? Why didn't the North just accept the fact that some states didn't agree, and let them do their own thing? They wouldn't have been prevented from future persuasion in a democratic manner. The North wouldn't have had to raise an army and take a risk that they lost and the South would have been satisfied with succession and co-existence, at least for a while.

Because in a democracy it's indispensable that when a free and fair vote has been cast and tallied, the losing side gracefully concedes. If the losing side revolts every time it doesn't get it's way, how can you have a democracy?

[Oldeb]

Originally Posted by Musicat

Hindsight is, of course, always 20-20. In the long run, it was good the Union was preserved.

But I can't help but wonder just why it was so godawful important to preserve the Union at the extreme cost that eventually resulted? Why didn't the North just accept the fact that some states didn't agree, and let them do their own thing? They wouldn't have been prevented from future persuasion in a democratic manner.

Not possible if the USA wanted to remain a country. Letting States in and out as they wanted destroys any power the Federal government has. It can't negotiate with other nations, because resources available one day may not be there the next. It can't promise any action, because there's no guarantee someone won't leave rather than do it. It can't promise to stop anything, because it can't enforce it.

Letting States back in afterwards is even messier. Can they pop in, grab some quick Federal grants, and pop out on the next contrived pretext? Do they owe back taxes? It's way too messy.

This does seem to be Will's preferred model, but it's worth noting that it's been explicitly rejected twice. First with the Articles transitioning to the Constitution and then with the Civil War.

The North wouldn't have had to raise an army and take a risk that they lost and the South would have been satisfied with succession and co-existence, at least for a while.

Letting the southern states leave was basically the biggest loss the North was ever going to take. Even if they wanted to the seceding States couldn't have taken any territory in the North and they knew it. Their entire goal was simply to hold on long enough for the Union to give up. The North pretty much had nothing more to lose on this one.

Peaceful coexistence was never going to happen. You've shifted the finish line for escaping slaves a long way south. It's lot easier to flee Virginia for Maryland than it is Quebec. Remember that the northern states were required to return escaped slaves prior to the Civil War, so anyone aiding escaped slaves had to at least be circumspect about it. If the secession had been allowed to stand the antagonism over slavery would have driven them to war before too long anyway.

To be honest I don't think the Confederacy could have lasted more than a generation in any case. They were trying to maintain an agrarian plantation lifestyle in the face of the Industrial Revolution. I suppose it's possible the Union could have just waited out the collapse, but I think then an, "I told you so," attitude would have made the Reconstruction even more complicated than it already was. I hate to say a million dead was a good thing, but considering other outcomes, well, I think it was best that events happened the way the did. There's some small changes that could certainly have improved things, but by the time we got to the Missouri Compromise I think all of this was inevitable. It was terrible, but I can't really see any alternative that wouldn't have ended up worse for me now in 2012.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Because in a democracy it's indispensable that when a free and fair vote has been cast and tallied, the losing side gracefully concedes. If the losing side revolts every time it doesn't get it's way, how can you have a democracy?

You can have a democracy just fine at the state level. Remember, back then, state levels were more important than federal, which caused the Civil War in the first place.

I just don't see the great harm in having two countries divided along ideological lines. After all, it would have been possible for the 13 original colonies to form 2 or even 3 countries instead of one. I don't think it would have spelled doom for all of them if that had happened.

Remember, Canada didn't join the 13 colonies, although it could have. Any argument that says that dividing the USA into South and North would be super bad will have to explain why keeping Canada separate from the Union was so good.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Musicat

You can have a democracy just fine at the state level.

Really? What happens when counties declare they have a right to secede because they've been victimized by a "tyrannical" state government?

Actually, as someone of a libertarian bent I wouldn't necessarily see this as a bad thing; I just don't see any viable intermediate point that wouldn't end up dispensing with coercive government altogether.

[Oldeb]

Originally Posted by Musicat

You can have a democracy just fine at the state level.

Not if you don't accept Lumpy's statement and in an election the loser doesn't to concede but can revolt instead. How would it have been different if during the last election for governor the southern counties of Wisconsin decided they'd rather be in Illinois? Or the southern townships in a single county? Or a neighborhood in the southernmost township?

Remember, back then, state levels were more important than federal, which caused the Civil War in the first place.

They hadn't been since the Articles of Confederation, not really anyway. It just took a while for the idea that they weren't to sink in. The aftermath of the Civil War did not involve any new language being added to the Constitution about who had more power, the States or the Federal government.

I just don't see the great harm in having two countries divided along ideological lines. After all, it would have been possible for the 13 original colonies to form 2 or even 3 countries instead of one. I don't think it would have spelled doom for all of them if that had happened.

Remember, Canada didn't join the 13 colonies, although it could have. Any argument that says that dividing the USA into South and North would be super bad will have to explain why keeping Canada separate from the Union was so good.

It works fine if you're creating new countries from scratch, although ideologically opposed countries sharing a border are a recipe for war. It's breaking apart an existing country that gets messy. Has anyone besides Czechoslovakia ever done it without incident? And they were operating under a unique set of circumstances completely unlike the US Civil War.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Musicat

You can have a democracy just fine at the state level. Remember, back then, state levels were more important than federal, which caused the Civil War in the first place.

I just don't see the great harm in having two countries divided along ideological lines. After all, it would have been possible for the 13 original colonies to form 2 or even 3 countries instead of one. I don't think it would have spelled doom for all of them if that had happened.

Except none of that happened.

The British colonies could have formed thirteen separate countries when they won their independence - but they didn't.

The anti-federalists who opposed the Constitution when it was proposed said that enacting the Constitution would be the end of state sovereignty. So take them at their word. The Constitution was enacted despite their objections, which means that the states were not sovereign.

And when South Carolina and ten other states seceded, they didn't form eleven new countries. They immediately banded together into a single country.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Musicat

But I can't help but wonder just why it was so godawful important to preserve the Union at the extreme cost that eventually resulted? Why didn't the North just accept the fact that some states didn't agree, and let them do their own thing? They wouldn't have been prevented from future persuasion in a democratic manner. The North wouldn't have had to raise an army and take a risk that they lost and the South would have been satisfied with succession and co-existence, at least for a while.

The main issue was that the United States had an obligation to its citizens. They were entitled to rights and protection as American citizens. And the position of the United States government was that a local rebellion was preventing the American government from ensuring those rights and protection to several million Americans.

It was not simply a theoretical matter or a fig leaf to justify a war. There were a lot of people in the seceding states who hadn't supported secession. The counter-secession of West Virginia was only one example of this.