Parallels I See With Today And 19th Century Civil War (Vanity)

Since we are in very polarized and charged times right now. I have noticed many parallels between right now and the Civil War of the 19th century. Wars are usually stemming from so many factors. For example World War I stemmed from most of Europe was ruled by empires, alliances, and arms race.

Civil War State's Rights Commerce Regulation Highly polarized Talks of secession from the Union

Today State's Rights Commerce Regulation Highly polarized Talks of secession from the Union

Notice any similarities? Of course this is not the 18th to 19th century America. The Civil War more due to slavery, economy, commerce, and loyalty to state. The Civil War pitted people against friends and families, who were either loyal to the Confederacy or Union. I have a feeling that the social ramifications of Health Care Reform will run deep for years to come. We could be pitted against each other since Health Care Reform passed.

The Civil War claimed 620,000 to 700,000 lives or about 2% of America (35,000,000 at the time), which today would translate into 6,000,000 killed. If a Civil War happened in the future, the death toll would be in the millions, somewhere in the neighbor of 6 to 20 million killed, which would be one of the deadliest wars in history. Also, many people would be displaced.

“Isn’t it fascinating that we still argue this after all these generations?”

Well I for one switched sides in that argument, i was originally due to my education in public schools pro-north.

It was not until I came to understand the nature of liberty and the logic behind the Decelerations of Independents proclaiming the right of secession to be inalienable and essential to liberty that I began to seriously question, the morality and merits of the story ive been told that he “saved the union”.

Now the more and more i think about it the more apparent it is, that there is no way in hell that Lincoln and the North could have been right under any free constitutional republic of civil government, because Secession had to be an inalienable right when any side felt that their rights were being abused by the other, (which the South certainly did by their own legal testaments.)

To allow any majority to in any way veto or stand in judgment of the merits of such a right is to practically enable them to deny a right that MUST be inalienable...

The final killer was the 1848 Lincoln speech in which Lincoln himself proclaimed this to be an inalienable right necessary to the preservation of liberty. It was then that I understood that it was all about power and rivalry feuding, not right or wrong, and certainty not any assimilate of constitutional law. as the Federal constitution is indeed deliberately silent on the issue, as any mention of a right that is unceedable in a constitution that cedes rights to a central government would be inappropriate, and potently dangerous.

Case closed, the South just as every other State has and had the inalienable the right to leave at any time they wish. This is a right that cannot be given up.

I see that we arrived at our conlcusion via a similar route. I too was taught pro-North through public education. I too began to question it all when I came to understand the nature of liberty. During some research on the topic I learned that the first litigation which included the constitutionality of secession didn’t happen until 3 years after the war. Until then it had only been Lincoln making the assertation that secession was unconstitutional. That was my first concrete clue that my education had not presented the facts as they had occurred. Any serious research yeilds much information that many do not know about the whole thing. Just one example; the true reason Lincoln signed the “Emancipation Proclamation”. In large part it was to hide the fact that the whole ungodly war was about power and rivalry feuding. Oh well, the Union wrote the history on this one. Pretty cool to know I’m not the only one who finds this topic interesting.

In 1860, the PRIMARY cause of the War of Yankee Agression was due to one faction trying to impose its will on another faction. Ever since this country was founded, there have been tensions between North and South, economically and societal. In the Constitutional Congress, the Founding Fathers created two houses constituted differently to safeguard against the more populous North ruling the South.

All through the 19th century, the North fought for high tariffs so that they would maintain an economic advantage. During the war that ensued, the objective was to destroy the South. It was not militarily necessary to burn Georgia. Heck, the whole war was unnecessary. If peaceful separation - followed by a cooperative attitude,had been allowed - slavery would have ended on its own. It was increasingly uneconomical for the 5% who had slaves to keep them.

The “Reconstruction” that followed was a period of slavery for the South. The Yankee government imposed its will to the detriment of the South. To this day, they still fight the war against the South. 0bambicare is just another shot in the war.

So yes, there are parallels with 1860. The question is whether we have learned anything from history or are we condemned to keep making the same mistakes. Face it, we are NOT one country. We have too many opposing views on how we see the world. How can one reconcile abortion? Why do we face higher and higher taxes and get less and less in return? Why do we have one faction STILL trying to impose its will on another faction?

We should let them fire first.

The first shots will be against guns. Particularly, first and foremost, will be the large distributers such as RSR, Midsouth, Walmart, etc. At the same time, ATF will raid every Type 07/Class 02 MFG since they have the "know how" to make weapons. Very soon after that will be all the Class III SOTs and then, all the rest of the gun stores.

After ATF gets ahold of all the 4473s that were pre-NICS/Brady, they will round up those with the most guns.

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front).....start shooting those "on your list" when you hear of FFLs and distributers getting raided en masse. If you don't have a list.....make one, because YOU are already on theirs.

Your point is valid as are most any on this subject, no matter which side you argue for. IMHO it all came down to failure of leadership....on both sides.

A short answer to your question is yes, leaving should have required the same consent. But, IMHO it was a matter of free will. And this is but one part of where leadership,representing both sides, totally failed.

Consider the state of Arkansas as just one example. Arkansas wanted to remain neutral and non-violent and also wanted to try to preserve the Union. But, the Union ordered the State to send troops. Arkansas still requested a neutral position but that was not a viable stance according to the Union. It was at that point that Arkansas was literally forced out of a neutral and non-violent position. The Southern states were not demanding anything of Arkansas and would have allowed them to remain neutral.

So many factors one can ponder when considering the totality of the War, eh?

All through the 19th century, the North fought for high tariffs so that they would maintain an economic advantage.

Tariffs were proposed as a way to develop an industrial economy. That way was open to the South as well.

Madison and Monroe believed that would happen and tariffs would help develop industry throughout the country, as did other Southerners. But the lure of cotton and slavery was too strong, so Southerners lagged behind in building factories and workshops.

I'd agree that the protective tariffs that came out of the war were way too high, but to say that it was all a Northern plot to oppress the South is to look at the telescope through the wrong end.

During the war that ensued, the objective was to destroy the South. It was not militarily necessary to burn Georgia.

During the war that ensued, the goal was to win the war and win it decisively. In an era when railroads were all important, winning the war meant destroying rail transport.

Sherman's men went beyond that in destroying property, but in comparison with other campaigns in other countries, the March to the Sea wasn't butchery or a bloodbath, it was a targeted destruction of resources, not of people.

Heck, the whole war was unnecessary. If peaceful separation - followed by a cooperative attitude,had been allowed - slavery would have ended on its own.

Slavery would have ended by itself? Maybe, though you couldn't have predicted that from how slaveowners talked. They thought it would go on for generations longer.

But what would have replaced slavery -- what pretty much did replace slavery -- were other forms of bondage or peonage. And that lasted as long as plantation owners needed hands to pick their cotton.

Maybe it wasn't worth the cost to abolish slavery when we did. But was it worth all those dead to preserve slavery? Nobody could forsee what would happen, but standing up against a breakaway rebellion was within the government's prerogatives.

It was increasingly uneconomical for the 5% who had slaves to keep them.

5% who owned slaves? Focus on the Deep South cotton states that led the rebellion. Now take wives and children and dependent relatives out of the mix. You'll find that the percentage of families who owned slaves was a lot higher.

When we say today that a certain percent of the population owns cars or houses, it doesn't make much sense to say that babies don't own them, and it's the same way when we talk about slaves. If your father or mother or husband or son owned slaves you were part of a slaveowning family.

I don’t see it so much as fascinating as necessary. Let’s face it, pretty much all the histories that were penned on the subject were written by the victors, which is normally what happens. And the victors generally slant the narrative to their advantage. For over fifty years the only objective works on the subject were written by Europeans. I feel we are duty bound to try and show “the other side” of the story — because there certainly is one, and it was suppressed for decades.

Now, the SUBJECT is fascinating, but that we argue it is not.

You’re right, it’s the subject that is fascinating. As a youngster I was always confused when my (long deceased who would be over 100 years old now) relatives referred to it as the War of Northern Aggression. That was not what I had been taught in school. Knowing what I do now I feel the schools have done (and are still doing) an injustice by not teaching the complete history of the Civil War (among many other things).

I never know if I should be apprehensive or amused when someone is vehement in their belief that all fault lies with the South. In discussion I tend to present a fact or two and ask a question or two for the individual to research or think about and let them draw their own conclusion. If they just want to argue and have no interest in reality or truth I just move on.

The conlusion that research leads me (personally) to is that leadership on both sides failed. Totally failed. However, I lay the results of the most disatrous decisions at Lincoln’s feet. I also believe that neither side won anything. Sure, at the end of the War the Union had total control of the South...but at what cost? No family, North or South, came out of that without suffering loss.

Thanks for your feedback!

But the Union is "perpetual". Says who?

The Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union established the Union as "perpetual".

The U.S. Constitution succeeded the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, seeking to "form a more perfect union".

Since the Union created by the Articles of Confederation was perpetual, and the U.S. Constitution sought to create a more perfect union, the more perfect union must also be perpetual or else it is not more perfect. See Texas v. White. This stuff is very settled law ... originating prior to the U.S. Constitution and affirmed many times since. I guess it is settled law to all but modern-day Confederate sympathizers. The fact that others before you have ignored / been ignorant of the law is irrelevant.

The reason for both the Articles and the Constitution was to create a limited federal government. The fact that these documents were created is itself a demonstration of the need the founders saw to restrain FedGov. They are contracts.

I've worked on Contract. I've written perpetual contract terms up, partnership agreements. They contain performance specifications, and if one side repeatedly violates them the contract is void.

The articles section 2 read:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

I believe that position of the Confederate States was that the contract, even if perpetual, was not without warrants. And, one side having repeatedly and flagrantly violated the terms of the contract, it was now void.

I understand you disagree that they had this right.

Ultimately though, the Union never sought to resolve this in court. The case you site, falling far short of trying the proposition on it's merits, as I have explained previously.

In the end the Confederate States chose to use force to separate, and the Union to use force to keep them in. The union won the battle of force, but it doesn't prove they won that battle of contracts. And, even if that would be proven it doesn't mean that the moral law was on the side of the North. As always there is a difference between what is moral and ethical, and what is legal.

Still, it remains my firm conviction that the South was standing in the right when they chose to leave the Union. As you have correctly noted the antecedents to The Constitution, let me note the words of the antecedent to the Articles of Confederation: The Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Confederates were simply reverting to the same rights that the founders acknowledged less than a century before.

I realize we're not going to agree. This is a never ending conflict in American history.

Have a nice Sunday!

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.