15/01: The Day They Drove Old Dixie Down
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
In case anyone is interested:
I have engaged in a conversation on the "Liberty Papers" concerning the right of the South to Secede.
Here is the post and thread of comments that followed.
Also, a related post on "Wake Up America" entitled the "War of Northern Aggression" argues that the South was right to secede, the war was never really over (the last 150 years was interlude), and Southerners might well walk away again--perhaps in the near future.
Here is my first post on the Liberty Papers thread, which sums up my view in a nutshell:
A Right to Secede?
Yes and No.
The lack of clarity in re secession allows enough gray area for lawyers and constitutionalists to make persuasive arguments for either position.
The right to secede flows from the original process of ratifying the Constitution. That is, if South Carolina voluntarily entered the Union through the process of a ratification convention, they ought to have the right to voluntarily exit the Union through a de-ratification convention.
Lincoln’s answer: South Carolina had entered into a perpetual union contract. Once in–they could never leave. How many perpetual union contracts have you entered into in your life? They are pretty rare. The Mafia comes to mind: “you walk in; you are carried out.” We generally do not view those sorts of arrangements as humane.
The Election of 1860, and the emergence of an entirely regional party (the GOP), signalled the end of the South as an equal player in the national government. At least, that was the argument.
True, Lincoln and the Republicans promised not to disturb slavery where it existed, which should have been enough–for we all know that politicians don’t lie or change their minds or shift their rhetoric later when it suits their needs.
In the end, I agree that the secession was about slavery. From the Northern point of view, the war not about slavery until much later. But the South attempted to bolt the Union in order to protect slavery. From our perspective, there is no defending that motivation.
Read the entire post and comment thread here.
I have engaged in a conversation on the "Liberty Papers" concerning the right of the South to Secede.
Here is the post and thread of comments that followed.
Also, a related post on "Wake Up America" entitled the "War of Northern Aggression" argues that the South was right to secede, the war was never really over (the last 150 years was interlude), and Southerners might well walk away again--perhaps in the near future.
Here is my first post on the Liberty Papers thread, which sums up my view in a nutshell:
A Right to Secede?
Yes and No.
The lack of clarity in re secession allows enough gray area for lawyers and constitutionalists to make persuasive arguments for either position.
The right to secede flows from the original process of ratifying the Constitution. That is, if South Carolina voluntarily entered the Union through the process of a ratification convention, they ought to have the right to voluntarily exit the Union through a de-ratification convention.
Lincoln’s answer: South Carolina had entered into a perpetual union contract. Once in–they could never leave. How many perpetual union contracts have you entered into in your life? They are pretty rare. The Mafia comes to mind: “you walk in; you are carried out.” We generally do not view those sorts of arrangements as humane.
The Election of 1860, and the emergence of an entirely regional party (the GOP), signalled the end of the South as an equal player in the national government. At least, that was the argument.
True, Lincoln and the Republicans promised not to disturb slavery where it existed, which should have been enough–for we all know that politicians don’t lie or change their minds or shift their rhetoric later when it suits their needs.
In the end, I agree that the secession was about slavery. From the Northern point of view, the war not about slavery until much later. But the South attempted to bolt the Union in order to protect slavery. From our perspective, there is no defending that motivation.
Read the entire post and comment thread here.
an okie gardener wrote: