...and the South had something that the North wanted.
Imho, the Civil War was more about money than anything else. Ending slavery was used as the “cause” and is a great outcome, but ultimately, like every war, it was about power and money.
EXACTLY!
Ladies & Gentlemen:
Tis a fruitless discussion for the “Secession” minded among us to enter into with those of a “Union” mindset. Those mindsets aren’t likely to change — even after 150 years and over 1 million wartime casualties. Not to mention the impoverishing of an entire region of the continent (including ALL citizens — red, yellow, BLACK & WHITE) under the direction of the Federals who conquered it.
We can simplify this into terms we might understand for today’s world, even here on FreeRepublic, in the “conservative” community.
Think of those of us who are still “secession-minded” as Conservatives who favor States Rights. We favor Constitutionalism, the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, the VERY limited role of a Federal Government to JUST the enumerated powers of the Constitution, and the very REAL role of the 10th Amendment as a check on Federal power. To that end, we would favor nullification as a viable check on Federal laws — the States can simply REFUSE to allow enforcement of Unconstitutional federal laws — and YES, States retain the right, even NOW, to secede from the Union when the Federal Union breaks the ORIGINAL CONTRACT clearly delineated in the Constitution which CREATED our Republic. Those who hold these views would in general be understood as SMALL GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES (aka “States Rights” Conservatives).
Think of those who espouse pro-Union views here, or “Union-minded” conservatives as those who believe in the central role of the Federal Government. They believe that the Federal Government, NOT the States, is the sole arbiter of the Bill of Rights and how it is applied, and that the powers once reserved for the States and the People were, due to the Rebellion (and the passage of the 14th Amendment and the reinterpretation of the Courts of the Interstate Commerce Clause) transferred to the Federal Government and largely removed FROM the states and the people. Thus, the Federal Government can and MUST regulate, police, control and enforce all aspects of the lives of it’s citizens, on every level, local, state, and federal, and the governments on those levels must be understood as merely extensions of or appendages to the Federal Government in Washington, DC. Ultimately, the decisions made by the Federal Government in Washington, DC are binding and authoritative on all levels and about every aspect of life based on the necessary power the central government has had to take on since at least the Civil War. Those who hold to this view are what we would call, today, “BIG GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES.” (I use “conservatives” only in the current political parlance. Ideologically, it would be largely inaccurate). Many believe they are “conservatives.” They even populate FR. But ultimately, when their backs are against the wall, they will opt to let Washington decide who’s “free” and who’s not. They won’t let those decision belong to “the States...or to the people.”
Excellent post, well worded and concise, preacher.
You chose the right name, to which you do much honor. I salute you sir for your ability to clearly and quickly cut to the heart of the matter and expose what is obvious to most of us, but who lack the clarity of speech to elucidate our thoughts.
Thank you for preachin’ it like it is.
FReegards,
RT
patriot preacher: "EXACTLY!"
patriot preacher: "We can simplify this into terms we might understand for today’s world, even here on FreeRepublic, in the “conservative” community."
What you do is over-simplify and distort the views of conservatives who support the Union cause in the Civil War.
patriot preacher: "Think of those who espouse pro-Union views here, or “Union-minded” conservatives as those who believe in the central role of the Federal Government. They believe that the Federal Government, NOT the States, is the sole arbiter..."
Nonsense. All conservatives understand that the Constitution enumerates certain powers to the Federal Government, and all others are reserved to the States and the people.
The issue of a supposed "right of unilateral secession" is totally separate -- yes, you can make your secession case until the cows come home, but those conservatives who disagree with you on this subject do not agree that the Federal Government has all powers to do whatever the h*ll it wants to.
However, among its enumerated powers, the Federal Government is required to:
These are the Constitutional powers that President Lincoln and Congress invoked in suppressing the Southern Rebellion.
So, whether or not unilateral secession itself was constitutional (it was not), the South's seizure of Federal properties, attacks on Federal forces plus invasions of Union territories and states were certainly acts of invasion, rebellion and domestic violence as enumerated in the Constitution.
The real truth of the matter is that the South provoked war because they wanted a Second War of Independence, to establish the Confederacy's legitimacy and make Jefferson Davis the new George Washington.
But unlike Washington, Davis & Co. were never able to secure the foreign allies that would have been necessary to actually win their Second War of Independence.
Finally, virtually everyone posting here in defense of Lincoln and the Union, would agree with Lincoln that secession could be perfectly legal, if approved by Congress.
But lacking such Congressional approval, Lincoln's constitutional duty was to preserve the union against rebellion, invasion and domestic violence -- and that's just what he did.