Posted on 07/11/2015 9:54:21 AM PDT by golux
The colonists called it an rebellion.
Because the British called it so. And many Southerners called themselves rebels too, because the North called them so. It was still a case of secession in both cases. Re-read the definition of secession again please.
“Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; this is all we can expect - We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our own Country's Honor, all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions - The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the Tyranny meditated against them. Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and shew the whole world, that a Freeman contending for Liberty on his own ground is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth.” ― George Washington
And at the same time they said they ratified and were bound by the Constitution that was passed out of convention. Their assumption they could just walk out doesn't mean they could.
The Southern states had more of a legal basis for their actions than did the colonists.
Hardly.
They joined the Union voluntarily and can leave voluntarily.
Five of the seven original states didn't join anything. They were allowed into the union only with the permission of the other states. So if you're trying to say that states should be able to leave the same way that states are allowed to join then I wouldn't argue with you.
Do you really believe the Founders would be stupid enough to join a Union from which they could never leave if things went bad?
Do you really believe that the Founders would allow states to leave in a way guaranteed to cause disagreement and conflict?
But Great Britain recognized the United States, which was a nation that allowed slavery. So your previous comment that Great Britain would not recognize the Confederate States of America because it (CSA) allowed slavery makes no sense at all. If GB refused to recognize CSA because of slavery, it would not have recognized USA for the same reason. But, it didn’t.
GB played it cautious, and wanted to see how the CW turned out.
Too funny! No one ever said that Jefferson was the savior of the blacks, but you Yankees have for generations said Lincoln was, and Lincoln was the quintessential white supremacist.
We just expect you to be honest, and consistent. But that is too much to ask.
I think that is too skewed, you wanted independence only for WHITE PEOPLE
Ideas incite men, but it is men that bring about war. Men may have their reasons for conflict, but if they are politicians, entrusted by the people with the power to conduct war, then they have the responsibility to couch their reasoning not in the excuse of another’s shortfalls, but in the logic of law.
Many, who would lay blame for the great American war at the feet of the people of the South, invoke the logic that there would not have been war without slavery. They make the case that slavery was at the root of the argument between North and South. Slavery, it is said, was the obvious difference between the two sections; slavery aroused conflicting passions, principles and interests. The cause is variously presented as a moral issue, a political issue, an economic issue, a racial issue, an ideological issue and a highly emotional issue.
Concerning the moral issue, in practical terms, the slavery controversy was conducted, not on the basis of facts and realities, but in terms of symbols, slogans, images, and all the trappings of irresponsible and ill-informed propaganda. The North viewed the entire South through the eyes of Harriet Beecher Stowe, John Brown, Ward Beecher, Senator Charles Sumner, and Frederick Douglas.
It cannot be said that North and South were divided on racial prejudice. Even though the Republicans protested over the Dred Scott verdict, blacks were still actively prejudiced against in the North. Indeed, it is reported that one of the reasons why Republicans supported abolition was the belief that “even the free Negroes in the north would return to the southern states, their natural habitat within the United States”.
Final proof of Northern hypocrisy on the morality of slavery was offered by the discrimination against the Negro which was practiced, both officially and unofficially, legally, publicly and privately, throughout the northern states. The Northern abolitionists who did want to eradicate it were a small, distrusted and atypical minority in the north, who manifested radical attempts to incite racial violence.
Slavery was but the surface manifestation of a wider and deeper conflict between two cultures. Going beyond morality to politics, others, including Abraham Lincoln, had stated that the real political issue of the pre war years was not slavery itself, but its further extension into the western territories. It was claimed that slavery in the states where it already existed was not under direct political attack.
That was not true.
What was true in 1783 with the signing of the treaty of Paris, was not necessarily true in 1861. In 1783, the British themselves had slavery so of course they had no trouble with slavery in the US. However, the British passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833, and after that increasingly had a problem with slavery.
As far as England was concerned, there was a great deal of sympathy among the aristocracy and upper classes for the Southern cause, but they were prevented from recognizing the CSA as a country due to the widespread hate of slavery from the middle and working classes.
Nice quote. Not to speak badly of the dead, but J. Taylor Ellyson was eloquently wrong.
I will quote from the Mississippi Declaration of Secession, second paragraph, first sentence: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world.” So, regardless of what Mr. Ellyson might have said, the citizens of Mississippi were very clear what they fought for. As were the citizens of South Carolina, Texas, Georgia, and Florida, as they so clearly stated in their Articles of Secession. When refuting the words of an apologist after the fact, I always like to go back to the source material.
As regards the charge of Northern hypocrisy, you have to remember that the North was very clear that the reason they were fighting was for the maintenance and the preservation of the Union, not Slavery. To prove this I quote Abraham Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley dated August 22, 1862 “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
My position is that the South seceded and started the war because of slavery, as is proved by the Articles of Secession from the five states listed above. They were all VERY clear as to why they fought. While there were other issues of contention between the North and the South, it is very clear that the retention of the right to own people was the highest priority in the minds of the Southern elite (BTW, for those who would point out that only 5 states listed slavery in their Articles of Secession, and the others didn’t, if you read all of the other Articles they really don’t list any reasons – they just essentially say, we’re going).
Well I suppose you can say the same thing about the founders.
Do you really believe that the Founders would allow states to leave in a way guaranteed to cause disagreement and conflict?
It wasn't guaranteed to cause conflict. Disagreement, sure, but conflict, no. They had hoped that the states if necessary could just part in peace and there would be no conflict. The only reason there was conflict was because the North refused to simply let the South go in peace, just like Great Britain would not let the colonies go peacefully. Both stood to lose too much economically. They didn't care about the rights of the other states.
Yea, I read it. Secession implies an orderly, negotiated settlement as part of the withdrawal. Nothing in either the American Revolutionary war or the American Civil War was orderly or negotiated.
They were open rebellions, not secessions.
The Dems need to get rid of the name “Democratic Party.”
It’s represented slavery and oppression for more than 130 years longer than the Confederate flag.
If they thought that was an option under the Constitution that they ratified then it turns out they were mistaken.
And as we know, a right that one state has is a right that all states have.
And a restriction one state has is a restriction all states have. The states are co-equal. No one state has more rights than another.
Not sure where you are getting the idea that a state can't leave a union that they voluntarily joined.
And again, with the exception of the first thirteen states, none of the states "joined". They were admitted with the permission of the existing states, and only once they received that permission. That is all that matters, permission to join not desire to join. There are several cases of states, like Colorado, who wanted to join long before they were allowed in.
If France were to leave the European Union, should all the other countries wage war against them to make them stay, in order to "preserve the union?"
Well I don't know. Is the European Union goverened by the Constitution of the United States?
It wasn't guaranteed to cause conflict. Disagreement, sure, but conflict, no.
Well let's see. They walked out without discussion. They walked away from any responsibility for debt or treaty obligations the country took on while they were a part. The walked away with every bit of government property they could get their hands on. Seems to me that conduct like that was guaranteed to lead to more that simple disagreement.
They had hoped that the states if necessary could just part in peace and there would be no conflict.
Because they believed that any such parting would be mutual and done after both sides negotiated away any possible disagreements. I cannot find a single writing from any of the founders that says, or even implies, that a decision to leave should be one-sided and done without any thought to the impact the decision might have on the states remaining.
The only reason there was conflict was because the North refused to simply let the South go in peace, just like Great Britain would not let the colonies go peacefully.
It had been pretty peaceful from the time the states announced their secession up to the point where the South blew up Fort Sumter. So it's not that the North wouldn't let them go in peace, the South chose not to leave in peace.
Both stood to lose too much economically. They didn't care about the rights of the other states.
From a purely business and economic standpoint, an independent Confederacy would have had almost no impact on the rest of the U.S. The Confederacy would have continued to sell the U.S. cotton, the U.S. would have continued to sell the Confederacy manufactured goods, handle their finance, and broker and ship their exports because the South had no real alternative. Which is why opposition to Southern secession was political in nature, and that would have faded over time had the South not attacked.
Obviously, but that dodges the point here. Do *you* think they had a right? Does the evidence support what they thought?
The salient aspects are the same, and the Declaration does not stipulate that the right to separate is contingent upon specific reasons.
Yes, the rules were different between the Government of Great Britain and that of the United States. Britain never asserted a God given right to Independence, but the US government did.
Britain was never in contradiction with it's laws, but the US government was.
The salient point remains: There are two ways to leave the union - through congress or at the point of a gun.
The Declaration does not mention "congress" it mentions "God". I believe he trumps congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.