Posted on 11/23/2014 1:51:47 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion
Intolerable oppression is in the eye of the beholder. As I mentioned, the British Loyalists at the time did not find the circumstances to be those of "intolerable oppression." That was pretty much the opinion of that militant 1/3rd of the population that did so.
Although they were perfectly within their prerogative to seek dissolution they had no right to do so unilaterally.
You mean like the colonies did? Why not?
Exactly. It's hard to juxtapose such a claim with the fact of the Declaration of Independence.
What's really funny is that the Anti-Federalists were arguing that the Constitution would allow the Federal government to use the forces of some states to attack and subdue the independence of others.
Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/antifederalist-paper-29
Turns out the Anti-Federalists were pretty prescient regarding many of the points they put forth in opposition to the Constitution.
Secession is neither Constitutional nor Unconstitutional and is up to the individual state to decide.
Tell it to Hitler and Tojo.
Many times, might is right, and IMHO, the Civil War which saved this nation and ended slavery was one of those times.
Might will always be right. The key is for Good to have more Might than Evil.
First of all, there was zero in the way of oppression from the Federal government upon the South. Repeat === zero oppression. The government in power at that time was pro Southern in sympathy. They had no grievance, let alone grievance that justified secession.
Secession was a long sought desire of the Slave Power beginning with Calhoon in the 1830s.
The election of Lincoln, who opposed the expansion of slavery was an excuse for the slave power to do what they wanted to do for 30 or more years.
If the South had gone through Congress and presented their justification for separation, they could have been successful, but the fact is that in making their arguments that might have convinced congress, they would likely lost the support of the non-slave owning populations of their own states.
In my personal opinion, if the southern states had made secession a political process -- i.e. used the same process for admission of the states in reverse -- they could have been successful. The North was a sick of them as they were with the North.
But... once you fire on the Flag, you rightfully have a problem.
Comparing Lincoln to Hitler and Tojo is not very nice. I believe Lincoln at least thought himself to be fighting for a more altruistic purpose.
Many times, might is right, and IMHO, the Civil War which saved this nation and ended slavery was one of those times.
If the British nation had been saved by stopping it's rebellious colonies, would that also be a good thing? I'm sure the Historians on that alternate timeline would have written that it was, and I think 150 years later people would be here on "Devoted Monarchy" website defending it.
My initial point is still valid. It's rather hypocritical to praise Independence when you are in the process of trying to stamp it out for someone else.
If they had no grievance, then why did they do it? I think what you are trying to say is that they had no grievance with which *YOU* agreed, but in their own eyes they believed they did.
Secession was a long sought desire of the Slave Power beginning with Calhoon in the 1830s.
The election of Lincoln, who opposed the expansion of slavery was an excuse for the slave power to do what they wanted to do for 30 or more years.
I don't think your knowledge of History is complete. They were wary of this Union business right from the beginning and one of the reasons for their wariness was a concern about how it was going to affect their economic interests in the institution of slavery.
They were assured that it would not, and provisions to acknowledge and accommodate slavery were written right into the constitution. The Northern states (in which slavery was also still legal at this time) felt that they needed the Southern states to strengthen the nation they wanted to create, and they made the Devil's bargain with them to get them.
If the South had gone through Congress and presented their justification for separation, they could have been successful, but the fact is that in making their arguments that might have convinced congress, they would likely lost the support of the non-slave owning populations of their own states.
Do you think there was a single member of congress who was not aware of the South's desire to secede? Are you saying that because they didn't apply the proper quantity of pomp and circumstance that their right to self determination is invalid?
In my personal opinion, if the southern states had made secession a political process -- i.e. used the same process for admission of the states in reverse -- they could have been successful. The North was a sick of them as they were with the North.
But they didn't mind buying the Cotton. What they wanted was their new found morals *and* the product of slavery too. It's like those here in this country decrying cheap labor yet buying those t-shirts and shoes from countries that employ it because it suits their pockets.
But... once you fire on the Flag, you rightfully have a problem.
And I agree, this was where they made a serious mistake. As a matter of fact, this event was crucial to justifying the start of the civil war. Of course the fact that it was just a big show, and that no one was actually killed in the attack was irrelevant at the time.
Lincoln needed an event to rally Northern Opinion into supporting a war to stop Southern secession, and this attack gave him the tools he needed to do so. As I mentioned earlier, I have a friend who is black and a History major (with an obsession about this stuff) who is convinced that Lincoln cleverly created the whole event to produce the justification to do what he badly wanted to do anyway.
He does point out that Secretary of War Cameron had sent a letter to Robert Anderson advising him to surrender if he needed to.
It is not, however, the intention of the President to subject your command to any danger or hardship beyond what, in your judgement, would be usual in military life; and he has entire confidence that you will act as becomes a patriot and a soldier, under all circumstances.Whenever, if at all, in your judgment, to save yourself and command, a capitulation becomes a necessity, you are authorized to make it. [Respectfully SIMON CAMERON.]
He regards this as evidence that Lincoln expected his message to South Carolina Gov. Francis Wilkinson Pickens informing him he was going to resupply the fort would result in their attacking it. Which is exactly what happened.
My friend thinks Lincoln engineered the start of the civil war. Apparently he is not alone in his thinking.
Lincoln was an extremely clever man, and the idea that he played these people like a fiddle is plausible from what I can see, but whether or not this was true, they were stupid to attack that fort. Had they not done so, they would have very likely gotten away with Independence.
I wish to further add, none of my family was here in this country until long after all this was over. (except my Indian ancestors, but I hardly think they count as preferring one side over the other.) I do not live in a former Confederate state and so I have not been exposed to a one sided pro-Southern history.
I do not have a dog in this fight. I am just calling it like I see it.
Righto. So what are "these ends" that morally justify rebellion when the existing Form of Government becomes destructive to them?
The Declaration is essentially a moral document. The Founders could simply have declared their Independence and proclaimed their willingness to fight for it, and let it go at that. But instead they spent considerable time and effort to develop a document that explained why they believed what they were doing was right.
So what were "these ends?"
Why, the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," held by "all men (who) are created equal."
The American Revolution was morally justified only because it was intended to expand human liberty, not just because the Americans were unhappy.
A revolution by group A to impose or increase their dominance over group B is therefore by definition not justified by the principles of the Declaration.
Secession was not done to enhance or expand "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Rather it was explicitly proclaimed by those seceding that they did so to prevent the threat of some of their people gaining those rights.
There is also the little bit about "Governments ...derive ... their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Blacks and slaves in the South were part of the governed. Denying them any human rights at all or possibility of gaining them meant that whatever powers the secessionists might exercise, those powers were not and could not be "just."
The Founders were profoundly knowledgeable about history. They were well aware that many of the revolutions of the past resulted not in an expansion of freedom, but rather in one group (usually the nobility) gaining unjust power over the rest.
They stated very clearly that such a revolt, which was what secession at bottom was, could never be a just one.
You are aware that the guy who wrote that document also owned slaves till his death? (As did Washington.)
Apparently from the example we had from the founders, that morality you mentioned as justification for their breakaway from England, didn't extend to the issue of slavery. Again, *ALL* of the Colonies were slave states when that document was created.
So in the case of American Independence, we still have a bunch of Slave States breaking away from the larger government.
Once again, 1776 was a rather bad example for Lincoln to bring up while commemorating a battle fought to deny independence for others.
But the Founders were not explicitly fighting to protect and extend the institution of slavery.
The secessionists were.
Slavery, as you say, was not an issue in 1776. In 1861 it was.
But the Founders were not explicitly fighting to protect and extend the institution of slavery.
The secessionists were.
Slavery, as you say, was not an issue in 1776. In 1861 it was.
The Union wasn't explicitly fighting to abolish it either, and barring Ft. Sumter where no one was killed during the Confederate attack, the North was the deliberate aggressor.
But the point remains, the founders did not regard the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence as applicable to the slaves. Their own personal continuation of slavery demonstrates this conclusively.
Slavery, as you say, was not an issue in 1776. In 1861 it was.
Not to the union it wasn't. Their "principled" leader would gladly give up the slaves to get what he really wanted.
Ever since the civil war, people in the North wanted to believe the war which killed 600,000 people was fought for a noble purpose. It wasn't. That noble purpose got tacked on towards the end to justify all the bloodshed which occurred. Having suffered such heavy losses, the North would have revolted if no better rationale than forcing Southern states back into the union was not forthcoming.
Again, the abolishment of slavery did not motivate the North to fight the war, but it did give them a moral justification for getting so many people killed in the pursuit of an immoral purpose, AFTER. THE. FACT.
It does no such thing. Their own writings show conclusively that they were aware of the contradiction and regretted it greatly. They just didn't know to get rid of the institution safely. Since we're still dealing with the aftershocks of its abandonment, it's hard to argue with them on the point. Most deceived themselves that it would gradually fade away with no effort on their part. Given the economics of the institution in the late 1700s, this was not unreasonable.
The notion that the Founders did not think the principles of the DOI applied to Africans is the rationale behind the Dred Scott decision. It was conclusively refuted in the dissents to that atrocity, and many, many times since.
Ever since the civil war, people in the North wanted to believe the war which killed 600,000 people was fought for a noble purpose. It wasn't. That noble purpose got tacked on towards the end to justify all the bloodshed which occurred.
A classic example of projection. Secession and war by the South being about much of anything other than slavery was indeed an after-the-fact rationale to justify a war fought for an immoral cause.
It should also be noted that the destruction of the institution of slavery was NOT "tacked on towards the end" of the war. It was a continuous process that started within a couple months of Sumter and continued thru Dec. 1865. Notably, the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation was issued 16 months after Sumter, 31 months before the war ended. I don't see how that qualified as "towards the end." I produced a Timeline of Emancipation once that spelled out this gradual and continuous process by month. I'll see if I can find it to post.
Again, the abolishment of slavery did not motivate the North to fight the war, but it did give them a moral justification for getting so many people killed in the pursuit of an immoral purpose, AFTER. THE. FACT.
Again, projection.
I contend preservation of the Union was NOT an immoral cause, even divorced from the abolition of slavery. It tested "whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated (to the proposition that all men are created equal), can long endure."
Answering that test with a resounding YES was one of the most moral causes for which any war has ever been fought.
IMO of course.
Found it!
The process of emancipation started May 23,1861.
This was 41 days after the CSA chose to start war at Sumter. It continued pretty consistently up till the last slave was freed.
I fail to see how a continuous process starting less than 6 weeks after the war began can be construed as an ex post facto justification tacked on “towards the end of the war.”
1861
May General Butler refuses to return three slaves being used to build CSA fortifications to their owner. Concept of “contraband of war” invented.
August Confiscation Act of 1861 declares that any property, including slaves, used by CSA could be confiscated by military action.
September “Contrabands” employed by US Army and Navy paid wages, in addition to rations
November Nathaniel Gordon convicted and sentenced to death in NYC for slave trading (classified as piracy)
1862
February Nathaniel Gordon executed
March Washington, DC slaves freed by Congress, with partial compensation to owners
Return of escaped slaves to their owners by army officers prohibited by Congress. Even slaves escaped from Unionist owners.
April Congress offers compensation to any state that emancipates
May Lincoln publicly appeals to the border states to free their slaves
Slavery prohibited in all territories
July Lincoln appeals again to the border states
Militia Act of 1862 frees slaves who enlist in US military, their mothers, wives and children. Initially applies only to slaves from disloyal states or owners.
Second Confiscation Act provides for enticing slaves to leave owners in slave states, thereby becoming free. Authorizes President to issue Emancipation Proclamation as exercise of war powers.
September Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation
November Attorney General Bates issues ruling that free blacks are US citizens. Opens door to slaves of loyal states and owners freeing themselves, their mothers, wives and children by enlisting in US military.
1863
January Final Emancipation Proclamation issued 20,000 to 50,000 slaves in Union-controlled territory not specifically excluded by the language of the EP freed immediately
July WV slaves freed by state action
1864
January 13th Amendment introduced
March AR slaves freed by (puppet government) state action
April 13th Amendment passes Senate
June Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Law
September LA slaves freed by (puppet government) state action
November MD slaves freed by state action
1865
January MO slaves freed by state action
13th Amendment passes House
February TN slaves freed by (puppet government) state action
April Lee surrenders. All slaves freed in former CSA territory not excluded from the Emancipation Proclamation.
December 13th Amendment ratified
Slaves in KY (~50,000) and DE (~200) freed
The "institution" did not make them keep their own slaves. The point which you are continuously trying to skirt is that the principles asserted for them and their real world actions went in different directions.
The notion that the Founders did not think the principles of the DOI applied to Africans is the rationale behind the Dred Scott decision. It was conclusively refuted in the dissents to that atrocity, and many, many times since.
Dred Scott would not have been possible but for the obvious examples of the founders who created the Declaration continuing to keep slaves. It is irrational to believe that they would see the principles in the Declaration as encompassing slaves while they continued to keep them.
If they believed that the declaration applied to slaves, they would have immediately released all of theirs.
A classic example of projection. Secession and war by the South being about much of anything other than slavery was indeed an after-the-fact rationale to justify a war fought for an immoral cause.
For the sake of argument, let us assert that the south had the worst possible motives for wanting their independence. These motives have nothing to do with the North's motives for invading the South.
Again, the salient point which you are unwilling to face is that the North wasn't attempting to march down to Richmond Virginia to free any slaves. They just didn't. You are just lying to yourself if you believe that.
...Notably, the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation was issued 16 months after Sumter...
Over a year later? What had the Union troops been told in the meantime? What was their stated cause before he spent a year polishing his proclamation? Surely they had to have been told some reason for being sent to Richmond.
Also, as of August 22, 1862, Lincoln was saying that no freeing of slaves would also be acceptable to him. My friend, this is the smoking gun which puts the lie to your theory that the North invaded the South to destroy slavery.
They invaded to stop independence and then they "moved the goal posts."
I would be interested if you could find somewhere, anywhere, that I said, “the North invaded the South to destroy slavery.”
The Union side fought the entire war to preserve the Union. A convenient side effect of the war was that it destroyed slavery. In fact, once the war started there were only really three options with regard to the institution:
1. A quick Union victory would have resulted in temporary continuance of slavery, probably with increasing and gradually strangling restrictions. For instance, Congress could have, entirely constitutionally, prohibited commerce in slaves between the states. Shut up separately within states, the institution would have withered away.
2. A CSA victory would of course have resulted in slavery’s continuance for an indefinite period. I assume it would still have been abolished by the turn of the century or thereabouts, though quite possibly with some sort of nonsense about “apprenticeships” or such, as was tried unsuccessfully in the British colonies.
3. A long war resulting in an eventual Union victory. This would have inevitably resulted in abolition. No way the South gets to keep its slaves after starting such a horrible war to protect slavery. (That would have been the Union belief, anyway.)
CSA apologists often try a remarkably dishonest rhetorical trick. If one agrees that there were other issues than slavery involved in the regional dispute and the war, they think they’ve scored some sort of debating victory. But of course in the history of the world there has never been a war fought with unmixed motives. IOW, they try to erect the straw man that those who are not apologists for the CSA believe the war was ONLY about slavery.
To be fair, there are those on the Left who agree with them. Recognizing that the fight against slavery would have the US government fighting in a noble cause, (and we can’t have that) they insist that slavery was merely a side issue in the class struggle, or some such nonsense.
You are going to call a Union General's refusal to send back workers to the Confederacy as equivalent to initiating emancipation?
That is silly. I dare say no General would send anything useful back to the enemy. As a matter of fact, it would appear the General initially regarded them as "property", which kind of blows a big hole in your argument there.
August Confiscation Act of 1861 declares that any property, including slaves, used by CSA could be confiscated by military action.
And this just reinforces the point that they were regarded as confiscated property, and not free men. The Union wasn't even buying their own press releases at this point.
September “Contrabands” employed by US Army and Navy paid wages, in addition to rations
And here they realized just how silly they look and so they put a fig leaf on it after the fact.
The rest of this stuff is just attempts at rationalizing various events as being equivalent to a post hoc casus belli. Anything which happened after July 21 does not count as the cause of the Invasion. A lot of this stuff is just tactics to weaken the South militarily while strengthening the North Militarily.
None of this explains why they bypassed Maryland on their way to invade Virginia. What was the difference between Slave owning Maryland and Slave owning Virginia?
One of them was independent, the other was not. It is that independence which was intolerable.
There you go. That is the truth as I understand it. And this brings us back to my initial point.
It is Ironic that Abe Lincoln would reference the Declaration of Independence while engaging in a fight to prevent Independence for others. He was playing the King George III role in this drama.
Interestingly, you're also leaving out a couple of rather important events that took place that year before either date. The CSA formally declared war on the USA on May 15, and Virginia formally joined the CSA on May 23. When a nation formally declares war on another (that is what the CSA claimed it was doing, whether the USA recognized it as such or not), it pretty much loses the right to act all shocked and innocent when the other country chooses to fight.
And Virginians could not be overly shocked about being "invaded" when they had voluntarily joined a country that had already declared war on the people just across the river.
http://www.virginiamemory.com/online_classroom/union_or_secession/unit/10/referendum_on_secession
http://www.oldplaces.org/Colleton/civilwar.htm
None of this explains why they bypassed Maryland on their way to invade Virginia. What was the difference between Slave owning Maryland and Slave owning Virginia?
That one had declared and waged war on the USA and the other had not? (With exception of some pretty nasty riots in Baltimore, burning of bridges, etc.) But those were acts of individuals, not formal acts of the state.
Also, why exactly do you think the USA should have invaded MD?
Interestingly, Virginia initiated acts of war, by any definition, against the Union well before any acts of war by the USA against VA. VA troops were marching on Harpers Ferry and Fort Monroe shortly after, or possibly before, the convention voted for secession, and well over a month before VA, even in theory, withdrew from the Union by its referendum on May 23.
Despite VA having violated any reasonable expectation of its obligations as a State, the USA nevertheless did not "invade" until after VA had formally seceded.
Tell me again why VA had some "right" to not be invaded when it was already waging war on the USA.
You keep coming back, like you're stuck, to implying that I'm trying to say the Union had identical war aims in May 61 to those it had in May 63 or 64. I've never said any such thing.
In April 61 abolitionists went about in most of the North in considerable risk of violent attack. A year later their leaders were publicly welcomed to the Congress and cheered in the streets.
Wars have a way of changing people's attitudes and minds.
Look at Ben Butler, for example. He had supported Jefferson Davis for the Democratic nomination for president in 1860. A year or two later, he was the darling of the radical Republicans.
To be sure, BB was pretty much a despicable, though extremely clever, opportunist. But many other men made a similar journey of opinion. They had been in favor of compromise and conciliation to bring peace. When the CSA chose to throw peace out the window, they decided on war to the hilt. Which fairly obviously included war on the institution that had caused the war.
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.