Secession, right or wrong?

[Texican]

Secession as a right:  I'm okay with this.

Slavery:  I'm not okay with this.

The South was more wrong than right (and I say this even though I live in the South and pretty much despise what I see as the haughty arrogance of Northeastern states these days).

Slavery is always wrong and always overshadows any goodness a nation might otherwise have. The South deserved to lose the Civil War, and the North was incredibly lenient in its surrender terms. Any other Civil War and the loser would have been tried in kangaroo courts or swung from ropes.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Texican
Slavery is always wrong and always overshadows any goodness a nation might otherwise have.

True from our modern point of view, but it's worth bearing in mind that it wasn't so obviously true in the 19th century.

Throughout most of human history, slavery was widespread and regarded as normal and moral. The 19th century was a period of transition in which some people in some countries were beginning to look at slavery in a modern way. The Confederates weren't in the lead on this subject, but they weren't bringing up the rear either. Some countries were still practising slavery in the 20th century.

Would you say, for instance, that the slavery practised by the ancient Romans and Greeks overshadowed any goodness they may have had? I think we should make some allowance for the prevailing morality of the times.

[lvaces]

Reiyrc - Jefferson is saying that people who are being oppressed have the right to rebel.  I, and most people, would agree.  This does not mean that anybody has the right to rebel just because of an election result they do not like (otherwise no democracy could ever exist).  You point out to me the oppression that Lincoln as President was going to place on the south and then your Jefferson quote from the Declaration of Independence becomes applicable.  Otherwise it is not.  The only real oppression in the Jefferson meaning being done here is by white southerners against their slaves.  So what your quote actually proves is that the slaves had a right to rebel, not the white southerners. 

[Jonathan Palfrey]

In the 18th century, the colonists in America weren't 'oppressed' by Britain in any meaningful sense either. They were offended by having to pay some rather negligible taxes without being entitled to vote; and I'd say they were entitled to be offended, in principle. But oppressed? Compared with real oppression in other countries? They didn't know the meaning of the word.

[lvaces]

Jonathan - I agree that the level of oppression of the American colonies was much less than the oppression that went on (and goes on) in many other countries.  However, there is a certain level of oppression inherent in being governed by a system in which you have no political representation.  I would say that the colonists were oppressed in at least a small way, as opposed to being just annoyed or offended.  It is an interesting question whether this was enough oppression by itself to justify rebellion.  Personally, I have never been entirely convinced that the grievences of the colonists, though real, were large enough to justify violent revolt. But that is a thread for a different day and a different game  
 
But the point remains that the American colonists were actually oppressed, in at least this small way, while the pre-war south was not oppressed at all, as they had full political rights (and were even given extra political power by the 3/5ths rule).  Lincoln repeated over and over that the right to own slaves would be respected by him in the South and that the southern states would be left alone to manage their own affairs.  So I ask again, where is even the small oppression of the south by the Lincoln Administration that justifies revolt at all?   

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: lvaces
So I ask again, where is even the small oppression of the south by the Lincoln Administration that justifies revolt at all?

Well, no use asking me. I don't believe any oppression is needed.

The declaration of independence, apart from waffling on about oppression, also says that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. If you believe that -- which I do -- it should follow that an absence of consent (for any reason) is enough to terminate the relationship.

Most human relationships these days are by mutual consent; why not all?

[lvaces]

The declaration of independence, apart from waffling on about oppression, also says that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. If you believe that -- which I do -- it should follow that an absence of consent (for any reason) is enough to terminate the relationship.

 
And the southerners, believing this, must have been very careful to get the consent of the blacks living in the south before they took them out of the Union.  Again, Jonathan, I won't argue with the sentiments you express in the above quote.  I tend to agree with it.  I just ask what it has to do with the American south of 1860/61?  A society based on coerced slavery can not appeal to a philosophy of consent of the governed to justify its actions.  Even if consent of the governed is reason enough, the southern action was invalid because so many of the governed (namely the black slaves) did not give consent to this action.  So yes, if the southern states had freed the slaves, given them a political say in the secession decision, and allowed those that wanted to stay in the Union to do so, then one could argue that secession was right under a consent of the governed idea.  This is so far from what actually happened that any consent of the governed argument justification is thrown right out the window from the get-go. 
 
To put it in modern terms, if the people of Vermont voted to leave the Union today because they wanted to ... let's think of some off-the-wall reason ... do a bunch of extreme environmental stuff like ban cars and only allow solor powered electricity, I would think they were a little wacko, but I would probably not advocate using violence to hold them in the country.  However, if the men of Vermont got together, forcibly disenfranchised the women, then voted (with only the men voting) to leave the Union so they could hold their women in slavery, I would favor using violent force to keep Vermont in the Union and under the Constitution's equal protection laws.  And I would do this no matter how much the men yelled about consent of the governed.   

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: lvaces

However, if the men of Vermont got together, forcibly disenfranchised the women, then voted (with only the men voting) to leave the Union so they could hold their women in slavery

I would move to Vermont.[:D]

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: lvaces

And the southerners, believing this, must have been very careful to get the consent of the blacks living in the south before they took them out of the Union. Again, Jonathan, I won't argue with the sentiments you express in the above quote. I tend to agree with it. I just ask what it has to do with the American south of 1860/61? A society based on coerced slavery can not appeal to a philosophy of consent of the governed to justify its actions. Even if consent of the governed is reason enough, the southern action was invalid because so many of the governed (namely the black slaves) did not give consent to this action. So yes, if the southern states had freed the slaves, given them a political say in the secession decision, and allowed those that wanted to stay in the Union to do so, then one could argue that secession was right under a consent of the governed idea. This is so far from what actually happened that any consent of the governed argument justification is thrown right out the window from the get-go.

To put it in modern terms, if the people of Vermont voted to leave the Union today because they wanted to ... let's think of some off-the-wall reason ... do a bunch of extreme environmental stuff like ban cars and only allow solor powered electricity, I would think they were a little wacko, but I would probably not advocate using violence to hold them in the country. However, if the men of Vermont got together, forcibly disenfranchised the women, then voted (with only the men voting) to leave the Union so they could hold their women in slavery, I would favor using violent force to keep Vermont in the Union and under the Constitution's equal protection laws. And I would do this no matter how much the men yelled about consent of the governed.

I hear what you say, and I agree with you to some extent. But I think we're both experiencing some confusion between 19th-century and 21st-century morals and attitudes. Today, it would indeed be seen as outrageous if Vermont did as you say; but in the 19th century women didn't have the vote anyway. Nor did black men have the vote in most parts of the USA: James McPherson says in Battle Cry of Freedom that "Black men could vote in only six northern states" in 1863.

The fact that the South kept slaves was an issue; but the fact that they didn't have the vote wasn't an issue at the time. It would have been extraordinary to consult them about secession when they weren't consulted about anything else.

To put it another way: it would have been unreasonable for the USA at the time to demand that blacks (or women) should vote on secession, when they had no entitlement to a vote on anything in most states of the USA as a whole. They were non-people from a political point of view: to the US government as well as to the CS government.

If the USA had fought to free the slaves, I'd agree that it fought in a good cause. But in fact it fought to 'preserve the Union', i.e. to govern without the consent of the governed; which seems a bad cause to me. It's good that the slaves were freed as a result of the war; but to most US citizens, and to their government, that was a side-effect of the war, not the main point of it.

[lvaces]

Jonathan - Again, much of what you say is true.  In discussing whether Seccession was right or wrong, it makes quite a difference if you are asking from a viewpoint of a 19th century southerner or from a 21st century American.  The 19th century southerner would have said my analysis is wrong because what the blacks want does not matter since they are an inferior race.  Since the viewpoint of almost all 21st century Americans is that that is wrong, we naturally might come to a different conclusion.   

As you point out, the northern governments also fell well short of modern ideas of representative government, although they did not have any one instance of such particular failing in this regard as slavery was in the south.  It is worth noting in this regard that the direct cause of the Civil war was not Lincoln raising an army to invade the south to end slavery or even to force the southern states back into the Union.  It was that the southern states (in a huge political mistake) fired on a federal fort at Fort Sumter.  Just because I may withdraw my consent to be governed by a specific group does not give me the right to start shooting up their buildings. 

And AU Tiger, might I ask if you are married?  If you are, then you know that moving to Vermont in this case would do you no good.  After being married 8 years myself now,  I can tell you that no matter how society might legally arrange things, your wife is still probably going to get things her way.  All you can do is fight a delaying action and enjoy the ride along the way.         

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: lvaces
The 19th century southerner would have said my analysis is wrong because what the blacks want does not matter since they are an inferior race.

My point was actually that most 19th century northerners would have said the same thing.

ORIGINAL: lvaces
It is worth noting in this regard that the direct cause of the Civil war was not Lincoln raising an army to invade the south to end slavery or even to force the southern states back into the Union. It was that the southern states (in a huge political mistake) fired on a federal fort at Fort Sumter. Just because I may withdraw my consent to be governed by a specific group does not give me the right to start shooting up their buildings.

I agree that firing on Fort Sumter was a big mistake, and evidence of a belligerent attitude that was both unwise and unattractive. But the incident has been somewhat exaggerated. No-one was actually killed by the Confederate bombardment; and the fort itself, although erected by the federal government, stood on the territory of South Carolina (deep in the Confederacy, a long way from the US border). Given that Major Anderson was in breach of his orders in occupying the fort, Lincoln could have chosen to react to the incident by rebuking both Major Anderson and the Confederate forces who fired on him.

It would interesting to know if history would have been significantly altered had the Confederates ignored Anderson's provocative occupation of the fort, or if they had at least held their fire. Most likely, some other incident elsewhere would have 'started' the war.

I hardly think that Fort Sumter by itself was enough to justify four years of war and about a million casualties.

[lvaces]

My point was actually that most 19th century northerners would have said the same thing.

This point gets at what is so complex about the whole situation.  You are right that most northerners of the time would have said that blacks were inferior people.  However many of them would have still said that they were people, and as such were entitled to some rights.  Lincoln himself summed up the tension in these beliefs perfectly when he said the following in the first Lincoln-Douglas debate.

"I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]" Source - http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/debate1.htm

I believe this sums up as well as anything what the northern Lincoln voter was voting for.  Most agreed that blacks were inferior, but did not agree that from this it follows they count for nothing and exist only to be exploited.  An unattractive attitude to modern eyes, yes, but still significantly different than the attitude of the South.     

I agree that firing on Fort Sumter was a big mistake, and evidence of a belligerent attitude that was both unwise and unattractive. But the incident has been somewhat exaggerated. No-one was actually killed by the Confederate bombardment; and the fort itself, although erected by the federal government, stood on the territory of South Carolina (deep in the Confederacy, a long way from the US border). Given that Major Anderson was in breach of his orders in occupying the fort, Lincoln could have chosen to react to the incident by rebuking both Major Anderson and the Confederate forces who fired on him.

It would interesting to know if history would have been significantly altered had the Confederates ignored Anderson's provocative occupation of the fort, or if they had at least held their fire. Most likely, some other incident elsewhere would have 'started' the war.

I hardly think that Fort Sumter by itself was enough to justify four years of war and about a million casualties

.

Ahhh .. but when the war started, the northerners didn't know it would last 4 years with a million casualties.  They thought it would be won with those famous 90 day soldiers.  If the only result of the war had been to reoccupy Fort Sumter, of course 4 years and a million casualties were too much.  But that did not turn out to be the end result, the end result was to end slavery in America and reunify the country.  Was that worth all the blood and money?  From my viewpoint 150 years later, I answer yes.  It is not uncommon for wars to have results and consequences (and casualties) by the end far beyond the initial starting goals of the governments.   

I also wonder if some other incident would have started the war if the south had not fired on Fort Sumter.  In hindsight, if I was President of the Confederacy, my policy would have been a major peace offensive.  Openly allow the Federals to provision Sumter.  Heck, shower the Feds there with free food at our expense.  Sign a treaty to allow the Northerners permanent access to it.  The South already had 99.98% of what they wanted, independence and control of all the federal property except Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens.  The longer they could keep peace with an independent South in place, the more used to the idea the northerners would become.  The only thing that could blow it for them would be the start of a huge war.  Do whatever you have to to keep that war from starting.  Unfortunately (or fortunately if you think the destruction of the Confederacy was necessary), the built-up anger between north and south along with a more than healthy dose of pride in South Carolina kept them from settling for 99.98% of the loaf.

I do have to disagree with your statement that Major Anderson violated orders in occupying Fort Sumter.  President Buchanan's Secretary of War had given Major Anderson orders stating he could move from Fort Moltrie to Sumter whenever he had "tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act" by the South Carolinians.  As Bruce Catton puts it in 'The Coming Fury', "Inasmuch as tangible evidence of such a design lay all over Charleston as thick as a winter's fog, Anderson had in substance been told he could go to Sumter whenever he thought best."  When he did go to Sumter and the southerner's protested, a huge part of the reason the Buchanan ended up backing Anderson is that when they double-checked the orders he had been sent, they realized his orders did justify what he had done. 

Of course once the game comes out, Jonathan, you realize we can settle this discussion as it should be settled, over the (virtual) battle field. [:)]             


  

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: lvaces
I believe this sums up as well as anything what the northern Lincoln voter was voting for. Most agreed that blacks were inferior, but did not agree that from this it follows they count for nothing and exist only to be exploited. An unattractive attitude to modern eyes, yes, but still significantly different than the attitude of the South.

You've summed it up well. As far as I know, in the 19th century (and in previous centuries) most people in the world were racists. The Confederates were fairly normal in that respect. Nor were they unusual in practicing slavery: there was slavery in various other countries, and still more countries had only recently abandoned it. However, the Republican voters in the north were among the more advanced peoples of the time in opposing slavery.

My point was that, when there was an important political question such as whether to secede or not, it would have occurred to few people on either side of the border that black people should be given a vote on the subject. The "consent of the governed", in the 19th as indeed in the 18th century, meant "the consent of respectable white men among the governed." This is a travesty to us now, but it was the state of play then.

ORIGINAL: lvaces
Ahhh .. but when the war started, the northerners didn't know it would last 4 years with a million casualties. They thought it would be won with those famous 90 day soldiers.

The Confederates expected it to be over soon too. Both sides went into it far too willingly; though there were some sensible people on both sides who had an idea of what they were in for.

ORIGINAL: lvaces
If the only result of the war had been to reoccupy Fort Sumter, of course 4 years and a million casualties were too much. But that did not turn out to be the end result, the end result was to end slavery in America and reunify the country. Was that worth all the blood and money? From my viewpoint 150 years later, I answer yes. It is not uncommon for wars to have results and consequences (and casualties) by the end far beyond the initial starting goals of the governments.

Your opinion is both respectable and common. But I doubt myself that the war was worthwhile. The cost in life, in suffering, and in money was appalling. If the Confederacy had seceded peacefully, and had been allowed to do so, I reckon slavery would have ended anyway within a generation, and probably it would have rejoined the United States not much later, in good fellowship and without any reason for bitterness. I doubt that the period of separation would have been as damaging as the war. Of course that's just my opinion; no-one really knows.

ORIGINAL: lvaces
In hindsight, if I was President of the Confederacy, my policy would have been a major peace offensive. Openly allow the Federals to provision Sumter. Heck, shower the Feds there with free food at our expense. Sign a treaty to allow the Northerners permanent access to it. The South already had 99.98% of what they wanted, independence and control of all the federal property except Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens. The longer they could keep peace with an independent South in place, the more used to the idea the northerners would become. The only thing that could blow it for them would be the start of a huge war. Do whatever you have to to keep that war from starting. Unfortunately (or fortunately if you think the destruction of the Confederacy was necessary), the built-up anger between north and south along with a more than healthy dose of pride in South Carolina kept them from settling for 99.98% of the loaf.

I completely agree with you. The trouble was that both sides (especially the Confederates) greatly underestimated the military task in front of them in case of war. Had they been faced in 1861 with a modern history of the Civil War to read through, after they recovered they might have had the sense to avoid the whole business.

ORIGINAL: lvaces
I do have to disagree with your statement that Major Anderson violated orders in occupying Fort Sumter.

You may be right. I was relying on Alexander's account. I should have checked other sources.

ORIGINAL: lvaces
Of course once the game comes out, Jonathan, you realize we can settle this discussion as it should be settled, over the (virtual) battle field. [:)]

I'm willing in principle. The problem as always is shortage of time. But I'd like to play the game by e-mail.

[Twotribes]

Given the knowledge was available of the loss and damage suffered in the War of 1812 and more especially the revolutionary war, I would argue that they already had enough History to be warned. Personally I doubt it would have mattered. Lincoln had a duty and as far as i can tell he had NO intention of backing away from it or shirking it. If one believes the South was justified in leaving the Union then, Davis also had a duty. War was enivatible ( cant spell) given the two opposing sides and the willingness of the South to resort to open warfare on a marginal issue.

Once again, I remind you , Lincoln did NOT create an Army when the States left, he did so AFTER the shooting began.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Given the knowledge was available of the loss and damage suffered in the War of 1812 and more especially the revolutionary war, I would argue that they already had enough History to be warned. Personally I doubt it would have mattered. Lincoln had a duty and as far as i can tell he had NO intention of backing away from it or shirking it. If one believes the South was justified in leaving the Union then, Davis also had a duty. War was enivatible ( cant spell) given the two opposing sides and the willingness of the South to resort to open warfare on a marginal issue.

Once again, I remind you , Lincoln did NOT create an Army when the States left, he did so AFTER the shooting began.

Casualties from previous foreign wars is something the West Point military might know about, but the politicians probably wouldn't. McClellan was an observer during part of the Crimean War and had to know who bad the battles could get.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Davis could have reigned in the folks in Charleston. Lincoln never struck me as the type who would have done anything to provoke the South. His handling of Kentucky indicates he was willing to wait things out. Things might have peacefully resolved themselves. Once Sumter was fired upon, however, even if their were no casualties, it was too late.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: lvaces

Reiyrc - Jefferson is saying that people who are being oppressed have the right to rebel. I, and most people, would agree. This does not mean that anybody has the right to rebel just because of an election result they do not like (otherwise no democracy could ever exist).

He is saying that people who feel they are living under tyranny have the right to form a new government. The question is, what constitutes tyranny? Would the unjust loss of property constitute a reason? I would argue that he would think so.

You point out to me the oppression that Lincoln as President was going to place on the south and then your Jefferson quote from the Declaration of Independence becomes applicable.

The unwillingness of many in the north to uphold the 1850 fugitives slave law concerning runaway slaves comes to mind.

Otherwise it is not. The only real oppression in the Jefferson meaning being done here is by white southerners against their slaves. So what your quote actually proves is that the slaves had a right to rebel, not the white southerners.

No, it shows that the south had a right to rebel.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: lvaces


A society based on coerced slavery can not appeal to a philosophy of consent of the governed to justify its actions.

Sure it can. Why would you argue that it can't? Are you using modern day morality to argue that it is philosophically incompatible when we both know that slaves weren't considered citizens? Women also were governed but couldn't vote and given the mores of the age, this didn't constitute a violation of that philosophy either.

To put it in modern terms,

Which is where I have issue with your argument...putting it in modern terms.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
The unwillingness of many in the north to uphold the 1850 fugitives slave law concerning runaway slaves comes to mind.

I'm going to toss out a quick question: if the South felt part of the country wasn't upholding the fugitive slave laws, how did they expect a "foreign" country to respond?

At least as part of the country, they had some recourse, even if it didn't work that well. It is highly unlikely the North would have returned any fugitive slaves to the South if it was a separate country and wouldn't let slave catchers ply their trade.

[Twotribes]

Let me get this right ( again) the South left the Union because their "State" rights were violated by the election ( in a free and legal election) of a president they didnt like because he had previously stated he would ENFORCE the law of the land and make the Northern States obey the fugitive laws ( but that isnt infringing on Northern States rights at all) but secretly he was going to strip the south of slavery over night ( I must assume he would do this by Executive decree, since he didnt have the votes in the Senate and probably not in the House either)? Is that the property your talking about? Slaves?

If not be so kind as to provide us with a list of the Property Lincoln stole from the South without compensation BEFORE he was even President.

I sure as heck hope your not going to list Federal property in the States that left the Union. Seeing as how that was NOT State property anyway AND was given to the federal Government LONG before the activists in those States cooked up this garbage about how their "rights" were being stolen.

The reality is the Northern, not the Southern , States were more agrieved because they were forced against their desires ( legally because of the Constitution) to arrest and deport slaves that had run away. This in States where slavery was ILLEGAL. The Northern States had to contend with the Southern States trying to make it legal for them to kidnap blacks in their States because they didnt have a piece of paper proving they were not someones property.

The South had the Courts and the other 2 branches of the federal Government enforcing the laws from the Slave States while Northern blacks couldnt travel safely to Southern States for fear of being enslaved and sold to the highest bidder. So much for good faith and enforcement of State laws through out the land, ehh?

The North , not the South, was the place where State rights were denied by Federal action, yet suprisingly none of those States demanded to leave the Union. They drug their heals at enforcing laws that were ILLEGAL in their States but they acted when forced too by "GASP" the Federal Government.

Do go on and explain to us how the South was so agrieved by a Presidential election that they were forced to rebel due to the horrible Tryanny of actually GETTING their way in the Northern States.

[RERomine]

I don't think you will get a good answer to your questions because your arguments seem sound to me.

The problems the South had with the North tended more towards the abolishionists and not the government, but somewhere along the line, the government got the blame. Secession wasn't going to solve slavery related issues. Abolishionists were still going to exist. Slaves would still run, but fugitive slave laws would have gone away, at least where the North had to send slaves back to the South. Territories claimed by the United States would still be claimed as such. The only thing that might have been resolved would have been tariff related complaints, probably replaced with some other commerce related issue.