Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?
Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
If your objection is to a required size of the population, then I will put your concerns to rest. The Southern population was larger than the population of the Colonies when the Colonies left the British Union.
If your objection is that the desires of loyalists ought to override the will of the Majority, then I ask you what is your position in regards to the British loyalists when the colonists broke from the British Union?
This sounds like another example in which both positions cannot be true.
That's right. He wanted the states to provide the dominant government.
Many people are convinced that leaving the Union is absolutely forbidden, and will simply not entertain the question at all.
Well, you haven't even started to put together an argument in favor of separating a portion of the US. Which part, and why? How many people in that area want to do it, etc,?
Do some polling, put together a case, start a movement somewhere. Read about what Scotland did to get the Brits to agree to an election in Scotland on independence. Of course, it's not easy.
Oh, you figured that out. Who squealed? :)
I have pointed out in the past, if you fire scores of cannons at walls for hours, and don't kill anybody, it's not an accident.
Preservation of the union was the goal after the illegal secession, then prohibiting slavery was a fringe benefit.
Now here is where you are starting to sound rational. "Prohibiting slavery was a fringe benefit" is exactly right. It was just the icing on the cake, and that is all it ever was.
The real issue was "Preservation of the union", and that puts the ball right back in my court.
The Union didn't have a right to preserve the Union. The Southern states had a right to leave it. Again, it's in the Declaration of Independence. The Authority cited is "God."
"God Says it. I believe it. That settles it." :)
I’m not pretending that there was anything “legal” about our declaring independence from England. We were challenging the existing government. And, we expected a fight. And, we got a fight. And, we won. We overthrew the existing government in the Colonies.
I guess i'm not making my point clear. Let me try an analogy.
Suppose I own some land. Presumably I could dig a well on it if I wished. Now some people tell me I don't have a right to dig a well on it; That I cannot dig a well without their permission.
I don't want to dig a well, but i'll be D@mned if i'll let them get away with telling me I can't.
I think it's important to protect your rights, even if you have no intention of exercising them.
I am not trying to put together an argument for separation. I think if such a situation should ever arise, the reasons will be evident to everyone. I am simply trying to point out that should such a time ever come, people would be within their rights to do so.
BOTH were decided by force.
I am suggesting that the next time someone wants to secede, that they try a different approach, an approach like Scotland pursued. Try it.
I'm sure that when the time comes, they will try to do so. I am talking about how to go about it. Study Scotland's example. As it turned out, most of the folks in Scotland didn't want independence, but the people favoring independence were given an opportunity to make and test their case.
Presumably since we "won" our challenge, the new paradigm is the principles we had put forth.
The Converse is that we were still following English law in regards to Independence. No, I think we were supposed to follow American law, Specifically the first one.
"That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;
In other words we changed the rules, and then Lincoln insisted on going back to the British rules; That Independence is not a right.
BOTH were decided by force.
Yes, but one wasn't supposed to be. We changed the rules, remember? Force shouldn't have been required in the second case, because the principle that people had a right to leave had been won. Our Nation was founded on a new Paradigm, and not that of the British Union.
Had we followed our own paradigm, we would have accepted the same right for others, that we demanded the British accept from us.
The declaration was an argument. "For the following reasons, we believe we are entitled to be independent and, if you don't like it, come stop us. Strong letter to follow."
I am not talking "how", I'm talking that you have a right. I am putting forth nothing more than a statement of General principles.
As it turned out, most of the folks in Scotland didn't want independence, but the people favoring independence were given an opportunity to make and test their case.
Yes, isn't it ironic that the British grasped the principle of Independence better than the nation which created it? :)
Apparently they learned the lesson of 1776 better than we did. :)
You fail to make necessary distinctions.
We separated from Great Britain because King George III and Parliament had become tyrants.
The Confederacy tried to separate from, and declared and launched war upon, the Union, in the name of their claim to a “right” to tyrannize others, and to expand that tyranny into the states that had outlawed such tyranny.
Big difference. Which of course is a major reason for the completely different results obtained.
The American Revolution had a moral basis. The Confederacy had an immoral basis. End of story.
No, we didn't change the rules. President Washington himself put down some rebellions.
The rules have always been the same. There are existing governments. If you want to challenge or overthrow an existing government, expect a fight. You may win, but you may lose.
And, if you'd like, accompany your attempt with a nice letter explaining your reasons. Have a "decent respect" for the opinions of others. The secessionists did all that. The difference is that they lost the subsequent fight.
I cannot reconcile your statement above with what is written in that document. Once again we have a situation where both things cannot be true.
If the British Colonies secession from the British Union is not a case of expecting an "existing government" to "stop governing in a geographical area", I do not know what is.
That is exactly what we expected, and that is exactly what we got.
These people pledged their lives. What do you think they meant by that? They expected a fight.
Under the then British rules. But suppose Britain had a document called "The Freedom Declaration" which said that a Colony of Britain had a right to leave if the majority wished? Then Britain would have been in the wrong to stop them.
The British did not have such a document. *We did.*
Only in the minds of the Colonists. The British government believed themselves to be perfectly reasonable.
Well, they were wrong. Don’t you agree?
The Declaration didn’t claim “a right to leave if a majority wished.” You’re making that up.
You can call our independence a secession if you want. The words seem interchangeable.
I suppose the colonists could have tried to talk Britain into having an election in the colonies to decide the matter. We chose a different path. We chose to tell them to take a hike and to take our chances on a military resolution of the issue.
The secessionists did the same thing. They could have tried to negotiate with Washington for an election, but like the colonists, they decided to have the matter decided by force of arms. Unlike the colonists, they lost the fight.. That can happen.
The Whiskey rebellion is the equivalent of 11 states voting to secede from the Union? You don't even believe that yourself. Why would you put forth such a silly argument?
The rules have always been the same. There are existing governments. If you want to challenge or overthrow an existing government, expect a fight. You may win, but you may lose.
Your argument is still just an "appeal to force." I understand why you find this fallacy appealing, because you are seemingly not making any headway on the "reason" side of the argument.
The rules have always been the same until *we* changed them. We put new rules into effect, and we were the first beneficiary of the new rules.
Apparently we believed in them just long enough to benefit ourselves, and thereafter reverted back to the British rules.
I believe "tyranny" is in the eye of the beholder. Today we put up with more excessive taxation than the Colonies ever did, yet they thought it was sufficient reason to demand independence.
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.