Civil War rationale -- final?
(It has been a busy week!)
The Cause
The secession of Southern states, as they said, was about slavery. They talked about the rights of states with regard to slavery, and perhaps you can call this a "states rights" issue -- but I have large problems with it being called "states rights INSTEAD of slavery ( Read more... )
The Cause
The secession of Southern states, as they said, was about slavery. They talked about the rights of states with regard to slavery, and perhaps you can call this a "states rights" issue -- but I have large problems with it being called "states rights INSTEAD of slavery ( Read more... )
Invasion is a very powerful incentive. And where I live, the town changed hands many times. Much blood spilt and buildings burned makes it more personal and difficult to forgive even after all these years.
Not all of the states seceded the first time through. Their were arguements, votes against, etc.
"...it exists today ONLY because the citizens of the North chose not to exercise their right to replace their government."
Tell that to Maryland. They wanted to secede but could not, having the government hold them, as it did at gun point. A perfectly logical thing to do from a strategist's point of view, but I wouldn't say they stayed out of it willingly. And there were, particularly in NY, politicos spreading anti-war sentiment with a degree of success.
"Abraham Lincoln wasn't even in office yet when the first seven states seceded."
He had, however, been elected. On November 6, 1860. Between that time and his inaugural the first 7 states seceded. The South in essence ran 2 candidates and split their vote which complicates matters. It wasn't so much a people's mandate to end slavery as it was lack of political savvy that put Lincoln in the White House.
I certainly do think that slavery is abhorrent and should be discontinued world wide as soon as possible. But Civil War history is a twisty, complicated beast. Historians try to tell stories with clear heroes and villains, whether they be individuals or nascent nations.
Still not clear on how you feel about the 2nd Amendment.
Reply
This is based on Dave Leip's Atlas of US Presidential Elections: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
Reply
Yes -- but this wasn't invasion, it was anticipation of invasion. And Lincoln was specifically disclaiming that. They thought he would anyway -- and he did, of course, during the later War.
But at the time of the seven states' secession, there had been no invasion.
===|==============/ Level Head
Reply
Reply
It's an interesting sentence construction, and clever. I do not think you're suggesting that fear and hatred are "just cause" for war.
That it has been sufficient for past wars is evident enough. But some are calculated, pragmatic situations, fought for a particular purpose. And some ARE "just wars" though this term gets argued about a lot.
I don't see the Confederacy as "evil", by the way, and I have no problem with the display of the Confederate flag. It is a part of our history, and our heritage. There was much tragedy and ugliness there -- but at the end came faster healing that many predicted.
And on many of the war memorials, the names of Union and CSA soldiers, the valorous and the fallen, are listed equally.
I think that's the right approach.
===|==============/ Level Head
Reply
I should have addressed this right off the bat! My apologies. From the post linked above, but tucked down at the end:In short -- the citizens of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms. Period. And to suggest otherwise is to ignore ALL of the writing of the framers of the Constitution, and even its critics at the time. NONE of them suggested otherwise.
In short, I am for it. ];-)
===|==============/ Level Head
Reply
It is a terrible thing indeed. My family is from the south end of West Virginia, and two readers of this page live near Union, WV a few miles from the border -- a town which supported both sides, more or less simultaneously.
I'm not looking to suggest villians, here -- the actions of the people involved seemed reasonable to them at the time. But the tendency in recent days to say that "it wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights" seems incorrect in my opinion. And it seems to disagree with the statements of the participants on both sides.
Welcome, by the way!
===|==============/ Level Head
Reply
If I had a time machine, turned it on, and went out the front door of my house, I'd stumble over the bodies of soldiers of both sides.
You're right of course. Slavery was at the crux of it for those learned gentlemen who made the decisions for the state, although the family connections between statesmen probably had something to do with it also. Plus, their own classical studies and even Biblical teachings had slavery as an accepted institution.
Reply
True enough. And as you've alluded, we have slavery still operating today in parts of the world.
But I try to be careful about the religious aspect of early US slavery. While it's true that some pro-slavery folks used religion as a justification, the abolitionists also did. Considering the very large numbers of those, it's hard to say that Christianity itself was strongly pro-slavery.
Instead, it seems to me that their religion was a "ready hammer" for the "nail" of slavery (or abolition) -- since most of them were> religious, any topic of moment could be related to their religion, and made to conform to their view of it. (Few people, it seems, do such a match-up and completely change their minds on a topic, but it does happen.)
So I don't see Christianity as being to blame for slavery, or even really much involved with the question other than noting the "Bible-thumping" on both sides.
I point this out only because some of my fellow non-believers tend to point to slavery as one of the "proofs" that "Christianity is evil", a position that I find not only unsupported, but rather ironic.
===|==============/ Level Head
Reply
Leave a comment