In all three states the referendums were held after they had seceded, making them rather pointless; though it is notable that Tennessee was only 2-1 in favor of it’s secession after the fact for example. The referendum in Virginia hardly even matters since a large number of Virginians weren’t voting - that is, aside from those Virginians of a different skin color who weren’t allowed to vote regardless. Most of the delegates of Virginia west of the Allegheny Mountains voted against signing the Ordinance of Secession, and refusing orders from Richmond they seceded to form West Virginia and remain in the Union. Virginia, of course, was having none of that and dispatched troops who only got as far as Philippi before they were routed in the first organized land battle of the war, which also got the Union commander much attention in the press, a Major General by the name of George McClellan.
Oh wait:
Oops. I guess you meant the real fighting started when Virginia tried to put down the secession of Virginians back to the Union since shelling Fort Sumter for 36 hours doesn’t seem to count as “real fighting” for you.
Libertarians are deluded on this issue as they are on most others. The southern secessionists were not rejecting the system of government the United States had. In fact, they claimed they were breaking away in order to restore the true version of that government. The Confederate Constitution pretty much mirrored the United States Constitution. The CSA was no more libertarian than the USA was.
Let’s be honest. Many libertarians are just Republicans who are trying to sound cool. They have similar values and beliefs and if the GOP label weren’t so toxic, they would be proudly Republican.
Well if you mean “many Republicans are calling themselves libertarians because it sounds cool”, then yeah. Most conservatives seem to have no problem with legislating morality, which doesn’t sound very libertarian to me.
Georgia didn’t have a direct referendum, but did have a secession convention, to which delegates were elected. Citizens voted for either a “secessionist” or “co-operationist” delegate.
However, the geographic distribution of those votes prevented a “co-operationist” majority at the convention. (Sort of like how Al Gore won the majority of votes in 2000 but lost in the Electoral College.)
Interesting to contemplate, though, that if Georgia had held a pure plebiscite on the issue of secession, the secessionists might have lost. That would have made the Civil War a LOT more complicated.
The other poster also quoted this to me as if I hadn’t read it. It was so obviously silly I felt no need to respond but I will smack it down now.
Lincoln felt he was “obliged to collect” taxes from the seceding states. That would be akin to the British saying, “Don’t worry Colonies, as long as we are able to collect taxes from you unhindered, we will not invade.”
What I am saying is not radical. People are acting as if I’m reinventing the wheel, I’m not. What I am saying is corollary to the accepted view, expressly, that Lincoln waged war to preserve the union. Since the state could be roughly defined as that organization which has the power of taxation over a given geographical area, when Abe was preserving the Union he was preserving its ability to tax the seceding states.
It is only with a hefty dose of ideological woo that the state , or Union, morphs into anything other than the monopolist tax taker. Hence, only the indoctrinated are disturbed by a sober analysis of its actions.
Thanks to the rebellion of the slavemasters & their misled minions, the Union morphed into the Bringer of Freedom. Of course Lincoln went to war to save the Union–but that involved more than taxes. As the war dragged on, the Emancipation Proclamation followed–for several reasons.
Emphasis matters. You did not say “here’s a corollary to what Lincoln said.” Your exact words were:
[QUOTE=WillFarnaby]
In his first inaugural address Lincoln promised to invade the South in order to maintain the collection of tariffs in this area.
[/QUOTE]
This is simply not the same thing. Lincoln did not promise to “invade the South” for any reason. To the extent he suggests he might use force if a war is started by the South (which he very, very clearly says, by the way) he does not say it’s just to collect taxes. Your statement deliberately misrepresents the meaning and emphasis of his actual words; you are saying that Lincoln specifically stated an affirmative intention to engage in war, and to do so primarily to collect taxes. Neither is true. Lincoln, over and over again, states that he will not use force to do anything other than execute the functions of government he is legally entrusted with ensuring take place - which include, in his own words, far more than just collecting taxes. He cites, as other examples, delivering the mail, and yet you see fit not to make the claim that Abraham Lincoln “promised to invade the South to deliver the mail.” Why is that?
If your belief of the nature of the nation-state is that its only function is to collect taxes. your belief is a very strange one indeed, and one not supported by the facts.
I’ll also point out that this was 1861. There was no national income tax or sales tax or property tax. The tariff was collected at ports. So I don’t know what tax WillFarnaby thinks Lincoln was invading the South to collect. But I guess libertarians couldn’t get heated up over the theory that Lincoln was invading the South in order to resume mail delivery.
From the North: If secession was allowed to stand, the nation would become ungovernable. Every state who thought they would be better off alone would walk away. States would leave, or threaten to, in response to anything that did not benefit them. It would be a return to the mess that was the Articles of Confederation. The best Lincoln could hope for was a peaceable status quo, refusing to recognize the succession until the Confederacy started breaking apart at the seams.
From the South: The biggest slavery related arguments to date were not about abolishing slavery, but rather about expansion of slavery, return of escaped slaves, and the status of slaves taken into free states. All of these issues became worse after succession. If the USA and CSA existed side by side, the USA would totally dominated by anti-slave states, the Fugitive Slave act would be repealed or at least modified so that slaves from the CSA would not be returned. The North was in a better position to expand westward, and you would have seen more agitation of the slave populations by abolitionists sneaking into the CSA, or eventually government agents if the two nations could not make peace. The CSA needed more than just to be left alone. They needed to be able to expand to new areas and agreements from the USA to at least not actively undermine the precarious slave based economy and society.
Consider the difference between the Chief of Police saying “I am going to send officers to invade your home” versus saying “If you were to sit inside your living room and start shooting at people outside, it might become necessary for me to have police officers enter your home by force.” You think those are equivalent statements?
It is in fact absolutely the case that if pressed on the issue your local chief will admit that second statement is, by necessity, true. It’s not something he intends to do now, but something he may have to do if circumstances require it. It’s his job, and is the job of the local top police officer pretty much everywhere in the civilized world. That does not mean every chief of police plans to invade everyone’s house.
That’s what Lincoln actually said. Read the Address. He goes to rather long-winded pains (by modern standards; by the standards of the time Lincoln was very succinct) to make it extremely clear.
The most important difference here being that in that case, we won. Got the Brits to sign a treaty to that effect and everything. The Confederates could not back it up, nor find anyone else willing to help them out. They thought they could beat Mike Tyson and it turns out they couldn’t.
Libertarianism has a long history of being associated with racism. As well, despite their protestations they are pretty much anarchists by another name, and Lincoln made the hold of the federal government firmer and stronger by winning.
Except as slaveholders, they were by definition against democracy and freedom. They didn’t ask the slaves their opinion on the matter or allow them freedom.