The US Civil War: why was the North so adamant about holding the Union together?

[Craig B]

... on the other hand, 15-18th Century Poland had an elective monarchy where the nobility (actually about 10% of the population) would elect the next King.

That's about the proportion of the English population who, at the same time, elected not the King, who did very little, but the MPs who in effect chose the government. Moreover the last two Royal dynasties, the Stuarts and the Hanoverians, and the King who reigned between these dynasties, were elevated to the Throne by Parliament.

England has in effect been a Republic for a long time.

 

[jimbob]

I think constitutional monarchy is a better term, as well as being more common nowdays.

I have seen it argued that the distribution of powers in the US reflects that in Britain around the time of George III, where the Monarch and Upper House were far stronger than they are today.

 

[ddt]

Then there are nations with ceremonial or figurehead monarchies like the UK, where the Prime Minister does the work of leadership, but is chosen by whichever party or coalition of parties had gotten the majority of votes. They may thus be called crowned republics or quasi-republics. In John Adams: Defence of the Constitutions, 1787, John Adams called them "monarchical republics", which he discussed alongside "democratical republics" and "aristocratical republics".

The UK is firmly in the same category as the two states I mentioned - Norway, the state Ryokan, whom I responded to, comes from, and the Netherlands, where I'm from.

In another forum, I got into a lengthy argument about with someone who maintained that a "monarchical republic" is a contradiction in terms. I didn't think so -- that seems appropriate for a nation that acts like a republic except for having a figurehead monarch.

Such nations have parliamentary systems of government, and there are also several "pure" republics with parliamentary systems. They have elected ceremonial heads of state.

I don't think calling them "monarchical republics" or somesuch is appropriate. As jimbob says, the standard term is "constitutional monarchy", with the "constitutional" part essentially implying democracy.

What sets countries like NO, NL or UK off from republics with a figurehead presidency like Germany is the fairytale surrounding the Crown. There's a myth binding King to Country, and there's a Royal Family associated with it. The tabloids follow each and every move where the princes and princesses go, what their hobbies are and whatnot, and there's a royal fanclub that follows their each and every move. Do you see Bild paparazzi lurking in the bushes to capture pictures of the Gauck children going to school or to ballet lesson, or follow the Gauck family on holidays? No, Gauck is just president for five years, maybe another term, and that's it.

And that´s very much in line with the genesis of the word "republic": it comes from Latin "res publica΅, the public cause. The Romans chased away the last (Etruscan) king Tarquinius Superbus in 509BC and henceforth elected their executives - consuls, praetors, quaestors, etc. - themselves, for a fixed term from 1-5 years.

That's about the proportion of the English population who, at the same time, elected not the King, who did very little, but the MPs who in effect chose the government.

Yes, that's a great comparison.

Moreover the last two Royal dynasties, the Stuarts and the Hanoverians, and the King who reigned between these dynasties and shall not be named because he's the cause of all the current woes in the British Isles, and his co-reigning Queen, were elevated to the Throne by Parliament and with the help of some 20,000 Dutch troops.

Tsk, tsk, FTFY. (and yes, I know, that Queen was a Stuart).

England has in effect been a Republic for a long time.

What?

I think constitutional monarchy is a better term, as well as being more common nowdays.

Yes, I agree.

I have seen it argued that the distribution of powers in the US reflects that in Britain around the time of George III, where the Monarch and Upper House were far stronger than they are today.

One of the things that strikes me about the US constitution is that both House and Senate have the power to introduce bills - with the effect that in both houses, a bill may be introduced and approved about the same subject, and then some weird conciliation procedure must be followed to reach some compromise between those bills.

Was this also the case in GB in the 1770s, that the Lords could introduce a bill?

 

[angrysoba]

Was this also the case in GB in the 1770s, that the Lords could introduce a bill?

I believe it is still the case.

 

[Border Reiver]

It is also the case in Canada where the Senate (our upper house) can introduce legislation.

 

[Craig B]

What?

You're puzzled at my

England has in effect been a Republic for a long time.

It's because the details I give in respect of England are in part not true of Scotland.

The enfranchised proportion of the population was very much smaller than ten percent, even after the union of parliaments: indeed up to the Reform Act of 1832. link

In Scotland, the pre-1707 franchise had been adapted for the purposes of the Union Parliament. The 66 Scottish burghs, with the exception of Edinburgh, were combined into 14 districts or groups for the purpose of electing Members of Parliament, five of them having four burghs and nine having five burghs. They used a system of indirect election, with each burgh council electing a delegate to a meeting which elected the Member of Parliament.

Burgh Councils were not elected. Overall

The most striking statistic, however, is to be obtained by combining the voterates of all the Scottish counties (adding in figures for Dunbartonshire, Forfarshire and Kirkcudbright taken from the 1715-54 section of the History), which gives a maximum of less than 1,200, fewer than can be found in any single English county in this period, with the exception of Rutland.

So the oligarchical nature of the res publica was different in Scotland, even in the early Parliamentary Union period.

The Stewarts were not elevated to the throne by the Scottish Parliament, but by the founder of the dynasty marrying the daughter of the previous king in the Middle Ages. The Hanoverians were not elevated by the Scottish Parliament either. Indeed that parliament was abolished to enable their accession.

The Act of Security 1704 (also referred to as the Act for the Security of the Kingdom) was a response by the Parliament of Scotland to the Parliament of England's Act of Settlement 1701 ... requiring that, on the death of Queen Anne without issue, the three Estates of the Parliament were to appoint a Protestant successor from the descendants of the Scottish kings, but not the English successor unless various economic, political and religious conditions were met. The bill was refused Royal Assent by the Lord High Commissioner to the Parliament of Scotland.

The following year, 1704, the bill became an Act after the Scottish Parliament refused to raise taxes and sought to withdraw troops from the Duke of Marlborough's army in the War of the Spanish Succession unless Royal Assent was given.

A Union was imposed instead.

So the things I have adduced, that define England as a monarchical republic, either were not happening in Scotland, or were happening in a rather different way.

 

[hgc]

2. In practice, the result would have been a relatively poor, agricultural country just south of the more industrial and wealthier North. If you think immigration from Central and South America is currently a problem for the modern USA, I can only imagine to what this kind of division might lead.

Actually that great migration did happen, fueling the massive industrialization of the north with human capital.

 

[hgc]

One of the things that strikes me about the US constitution is that both House and Senate have the power to introduce bills - with the effect that in both houses, a bill may be introduced and approved about the same subject, and then some weird conciliation procedure must be followed to reach some compromise between those bills.

The constitution does reserve the privilege of originating spending bills for the House of Representatives. But, which house originates a bill isn't really meaningful, in practice. No matter what, the other house more often than not passes a different version of that bill, and the reconciliation must occur before it goes to the President.

 

[hgc]

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with that expression. What do you mean?

It means to be led down a primrose path, as in on an Internet forum someone poses a series of pointed questions intended to box someone else into a certain position.

 

[Craig B]

It means to be led down a primrose path, as in on an Internet forum someone poses a series of pointed questions intended to box someone else into a certain position.

Not very fair. I was simply asking for a comment. Is the body of existing Law the same thing as the current political power? If it is, is it meaningful to state that a government is behaving unlawfully? And then what, if anything, restrains the conduct of political leaders?

 

[Strozzi]

Seconded.

In just about every case, governments hate to get smaller and weaker; and by allowing the States to decide unilaterally if they want to stay in the Union or not, then the Union would become a considerably less strong and smaller sized government.

This also applies to colonial empires. Portugal was the last European country to concede independence to a large empire and it only occurred after exhausting counter-insurgency wars that went on from the early 1960's until 1975 in Angola, Mozambique, and Portuguese Guinea (now Guinea Bissau). The Portuguese military staged a coup in Lisbon on April 25, 1974, overthrowing the regime. Peaceful political decisions could not be made in the organs of government to solve the costly military situation, and the captains revolted.

 

[fuelair]

Actually that great migration did happen, fueling the massive industrialization of the north with human capital.

Including many Blacks - who were given word of the dfference in how they were treated in the big Northern cities (as a general but not absolute rule!!).

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Economic interests counted for something. Just about everything the South produced was milled in the north and shipped out of New York. The Northern economy could have withstood secession, but those Southern resources were much better utilized in united hands.

Interesting point. Why was that, do you think?
The non-highlighted part is interesting too, but one thing at a time.

 

[Craig B]

Interesting point. Why was that, do you think?

Because an agricultural economy, or one based on extraction of raw materials, can be made to function on the basis of slave labour, but not factory-based industry or seaborne trade.

That is why, as German serfs said in mediaeval times Stadtluft macht frei City air makes you free.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Because an agricultural economy, or one based on extraction of raw materials, can be made to function on the basis of slave labour, but not factory-based industry or seaborne trade.

That is why, as German serfs said in mediaeval times Stadtluft macht frei City air makes you free.

Thanks, but I meant why did the South send the raw materials North to begin with, instead of overseas, where the prices were better?

 

[jimbob]

Thanks, but I meant why did the South send the raw materials North to begin with, instead of overseas, where the prices were better?

I do know that a lot was sent to the textile mills in Britain. Was it just that the closest market was attractive because it could be traded directly without so many middlemen?

 

[Craig B]

Thanks, but I meant why did the South send the raw materials North to begin with, instead of overseas, where the prices were better?

Plenty went to the UK, particularly N England

In 1860, there were 2,650 cotton mills in the region, employing 440,000 people who were paid in total £11,500,000 per annum. 90% were adults and 56% female. The mills used 300,000 hp (220,000 kW) of which 18,500 was generated by waterpower. The mills had 30,387,467 spindles and 350,000 power looms. The industry imported 1,390,938,752 lb (630,919,205 kg) of raw cotton a year. It exported 2,776,218,427 yards of cotton cloth and 197,343,655 lb (89,513,576 kg) of twist and yarn. The total value of its exports was £32,012,380 ... Of the 1,390,938,752 lb of raw cotton 1,115,890,608 lb came from America.(80 %)

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Plenty went to the UK, particularly N England

That would seem to make a case against Loss Leader's statement that " Just about everything the South produced was milled in the north and shipped out of New York". It looks like a very large amount was shipped to Europe.
It does provide a pretty good reason for explaining why the North was so adamant about keeping the Southern states under the control of the Union, however.
You wouldn't want the cash cow to wander off on its own, would you?

 

[Craig B]

That would seem to make a case against Loss Leader's statement that " Just about everything the South produced was milled in the north and shipped out of New York". It looks like a very large amount was shipped to Europe.
It does provide a pretty good reason for explaining why the North was so adamant about keeping the Southern states under the control of the Union, however.
You wouldn't want the cash cow to wander off on its own, would you?

No. Some useful info there. I've calculated the weekly wage represented by the total pay and number of employees. The exchange rate in 1860 was 4.96 USD to 1 GPB which makes the average wage $2.50 per week, to within a cent or so.

The subsequent "cotton famine" caused by the war produced distress and ruin throughout the area, especially in Lancashire.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

No. Some useful info there. I've calculated the weekly wage represented by the total pay and number of employees. The exchange rate in 1860 was 4.96 USD to 1 GPB which makes the average wage $2.50 per week, to within a cent or so.

The subsequent "cotton famine" caused by the war produced distress and ruin throughout the area, especially in Lancashire.

What does this have to do with Loss Leaders statement that "Just about everything the South produced was milled in the north and shipped out of New York"?