Were the Southern States wrong to secede?

[TraneWreck]

I don't think Davis' treatment was in any way based on law or any prosecutor's reading of the law. After all, the man sent Confederate troops north, out of Virginia, to terrorize the rust belt. That's not just secession. That's not just defending one's borders.

The decision not to try the leaders of the Confederacy was a political one. It was made in order to reestablish the trust of Southern people in the union. It was a courageous decision and, I'm sure, not an easy one. And it probably short-circuited

Ironically, the single event that most short-circuited the peaceful re-entry of the Southern states was the Lincoln assassination.

Lincoln forcefully argued against punitive measures in the South, and he was the only leader with enough personal standing to get Congress on board. If you recall, Johnson was so weak and ineffective that he ended up being impeached largely over that very issue.

It's a truth of almost all assassinations: they generally affect change in the exact opposite direction the assassins intended...

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ironically, the single event that most short-circuited the peaceful re-entry of the Southern states was the Lincoln assassination.

Lincoln forcefully argued against punitive measures in the South, and he was the only leader with enough personal standing to get Congress on board. If you recall, Johnson was so weak and ineffective that he ended up being impeached largely over that very issue.

Concur.

@ Loss Leader for #158. Thanks for the answer; good post.

DR

 

[Belz...]

We ARE all one nation.

Isn't that nation born from the union of more-or-less independent states, to start with ?

 

[Belz...]

well, Quebec can't just leave Canada and automatically join the USA. We have to approve it first.

It can't "just leave" Canada, but if the population at large decided to do so (there have been two referendums so far), the only way to stop them would be by a war of aggression. I don't think the rest of Canada would do that.

That said, I'd rather Québec stayed in Canada. Strength through diversity.

 

[Belz...]

Texas couldn't escape the Union no matter how anyone wants to interpret the law, because I (and I would imagine millions of people like me) would rather kill every single one of them than let that happen.

Huh ?

I usually have a lot of respect for you, but this ??

 

[Loss Leader]

Isn't that nation born from the union of more-or-less independent states, to start with ?

If you define "more-or-less independent" as "never having been independent in any way," then yes.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Texas couldn't escape the Union no matter how anyone wants to interpret the law, because I (and I would imagine millions of people like me) would rather kill every single one of them than let that happen

.

I usually have a lot of respect for you, but this ??

This is the Nixonian theory of politics: gotta destroy it to save it.

For LL: might want to channel Lincoln a bit in re that remark. The idea he seemed to have was to kill enough to get the rest to come back ... at least, that's how it worked out, and how he envisioned the Reconstruction working. He was aware that the strength of each state was its people ...

DR

 

[kmortis]

If you define "more-or-less independent" as "never having been independent in any way," then yes.

Um...no. Prior to the Revolution, each colony was it's own independent "state". The largest challenge facing the founding fathers was how do you get 13 cats new states to act in unison? As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, it wasn't until after the Civil War that the united States of America became the United States of America. The Great Compromise of Madison was to help allay fears from the states that their voice wouldn't be heard either in porportion to their population (in the case of larger states) or at all (in the case of the smaller ones). So, yeah, the states were more-or-less independent at the beginning. Granted, they were all ruled, nominally, by King George, but they all had separate govenors who had varying amounds of freedom to rule in his name.

 

[Loss Leader]

Um...no. Prior to the Revolution, each colony was it's own independent "state".

Um ... no. Prior to the Revolution, each colony was a colony.

The way I know is that I asked George III in 1769 how he'd feel if Virginia established its own army, refused to remit taxes to England, and sent ambassadors to France to establish separate diplomatic relations. He said he was against it.

 

[Belz...]

If you define "more-or-less independent" as "never having been independent in any way," then yes.

Well, I'm not very knowledgeable in US history, so I'll take your word for it.

 

[Belz...]

Um ... no. Prior to the Revolution, each colony was a colony.

Doesn't that kinda work againt what you told me previously ?

 

[TraneWreck]

Doesn't that kinda work againt what you told me previously ?

Colony and independent don't tend to go together.

I don't remember everything about the American Revolution, but I'm fairly certain "damn all this independence" wasn't one of their slogans...

 

[kmortis]

Um ... no. Prior to the Revolution, each colony was a colony.

The way I know is that I asked George III in 1769 how he'd feel if Virginia established its own army, refused to remit taxes to England, and sent ambassadors to France to establish separate diplomatic relations. He said he was against it.

You missed my point, they were independent from each other, not from England. And King Geo didn't do the day to day ruling, that was the job of the Govenors, that pesky trans-Atlantic travel and all that.

That was one of the biggest stumbling points to the revolution, each colony had to overcome its distrust of the others who they saw as competing for the same resources. IT's why, for all his foibles, Johnny Adams will always hold a place dear to my heart, he got the 13 bickering children to all start playing together in the same sandbox. Most of the colonies were quite content to let King George punish the Massachuessets Bay Colony for it's bad behavior, so long as they were left alone. Granted, some of the colonial leaders weren't that short sighted (Virginia comes to mind), but the vast majority were willing to let MBC take her lumps alone. So yeah, they were independent.

 

[kmortis]

Colony and independent don't tend to go together.

I don't remember everything about the American Revolution, but I'm fairly certain "damn all this independence" wasn't one of their slogans...

No, but by the same token, they weren't exactly clamoring to break free at first either. It took some very elloquent weedling by Adams to get the other 12 colonies to come around. Hell, even after the DOI was written, some of the colonies had to be talked back into it, their better sense rising up. I mean really...taking on the largest and strongest nation of their day? You must be mad!

But take them on they did.

 

[TraneWreck]

No, but by the same token, they weren't exactly clamoring to break free at first either. It took some very elloquent weedling by Adams to get the other 12 colonies to come around. Hell, even after the DOI was written, some of the colonies had to be talked back into it, their better sense rising up. I mean really...taking on the largest and strongest nation of their day? You must be mad!

But take them on they did.

Sure, but they weren't ever independent.

 

[kmortis]

Sure, but they weren't ever independent.

From the Crown? No, not until 1783. From each other? Yes until 1781.

 

[TraneWreck]

From the Crown? No, not until 1783. From each other? Yes until 1781.

I was responding to this statement:

Prior to the Revolution, each colony was it's own independent "state".

They were not. They were English colonies. Their local government had some functions, but they were not sovereign.

Thus, "No taxation without representation..." and so on.

 

[Loss Leader]

From the Crown? No, not until 1783. From each other? Yes until 1781.

Even if I were to agree with you, that would still only hold true for the first thirteen colonies. That makes twenty-one states during the Civil War that had never been anything except part of the Union. It's really hard to credit Arkansas with the claim that it was choosing to return to its sovereign status.

 

[kmortis]

Even if I were to agree with you, that would still only hold true for the first thirteen colonies. That makes twenty-one states during the Civil War that had never been anything except part of the Union. It's really hard to credit Arkansas with the claim that it was choosing to return to its sovereign status.

Oh, that I'll grant you. Although, there still was only a loose sentiment of unity amongst the states. So even though Arkansas, Tennessee and all the other late arrivals still had more of a state-level feality rather than a national identity. Kind of similar to how my Montrealer friends describe how they are - Montrealers first, Quebecers second and Canadians last.

This sentiment is why the units refered to themselves by state, not federation. Yes, they all wore a US or CSA insignia, but they served in the Army of Northern Virginia, or the Army of the Tennessee.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I was reading just tonight how in 1948 or maybe 1949 Israel shot down 6 British fighter aircraft. Hostile act, casus belli for Britain if she chose, but not a declaration of war.

So you can not call firing on Fort Sumter a declaration of war, because the Southern States had no interest beyond removing federal forces from what they claimed as their sovereign territory.

.... Right. (No.)

It seems pointless to deny the Union their agency of their own actions. Abraham Lincoln took a decision to invade, he could have chosen not to. Politically speaking he had no choice but to attack if he wanted to be reelected - maybe the rump Congress might have forced him too? (I am no expert on the days of 1861).

You are entirely right, he COULD have let the South take over his .. wait, what. (Actually, he had promised to hold all federal property in his inaugural address)