Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is interesting to read contemporary arguments by libertarians and neo-anti-federalist that write in favor of secession and how those arguments closely mirror the political sentiments expressed by secessionist prior to and during the Civil War. However, what these contemporary arguments fail to acknowledge is the historical evidence of how those sentiments were actually put into practice by the confederacy proved to be a significant contributing factor leading to its defeat. The inability of the confederacy to effectively enforce conscription, raise money, or even direct the deployment of state militias without the cooperation of the various state governments are just a few examples all couched in terms of states' rights proved the confederacy to be ungovernable just as the United States under the Articles of Confederation proved to be an ineffective form of national government, and as the European Union demonstrates today.
^ That's a pretty short-sighted view of the demise of the Confederacy. It's also a shallow view of current Libertarians.
Timing is vital. Had the Civil War taken place 25 years earlier, before the North was as industrialized as it became toward the mid-late 1800s, the Confederacy would almost certainly have won the war.
^ That's a pretty short-sighted view of the demise of the Confederacy. It's also a shallow view of current Libertarians.
Short sighted? I raised a pointed about one neglected aspect of the problems that confronted the confederacy not the totality of issues that contributed to its defeat. Being shallow, is to argue that the South would have one if the war had taken place 25 years earlier as even then the south was in better shape industrially or in size of population to defeat the north.
As for libertarians since I only referred to those libertarians that argue in favor of secession it should seem rather obvious that there is more complexity to libertarian philosophy which as far as I am concerned is neither consistent or uniformed but rather a political movement which has views ranging from the far right to the far left.
Short sighted? I raised a pointed about one neglected aspect of the problems that confronted the confederacy not the totality of issues that contributed to its defeat. Being shallow, is to argue that the South would have one if the war had taken place 25 years earlier as even then the south was in better shape industrially or in size of population to defeat the north.
As for libertarians since I only referred to those libertarians that argue in favor of secession it should seem rather obvious that there is more complexity to libertarian philosophy which as far as I am concerned is neither consistent or uniformed but rather a political movement which has views ranging from the far right to the far left.
So then... You're just posting to hear you argue with yourself. Thanks for the clarification.
A 25-year earlier start to the Civil War would have had FAR greater implications than any supposed anti-federal mindset by the Confederate States. The South had no real problem rallying the troops, after Union Armies invaded their states. And they almost won anyway, despite the superior numbers and artillery of the North. Had they had equal weaponry and/or numbers, the war would have turned out differently.
Last edited by Big George; 09-10-2012 at 10:44 PM..
Had they had equal weaponry and/or numbers, the war would have turned out differently.
Had they equal numbers, there would not have been a war.
To inflate the Confederate army to the same size as the Federal force, implies that the South had an equal population base from which to recruit soldiers. If the populations were equal, I cannot see how President Lincoln could still have been elected. No Lincoln, no secession, no secession, no war.
Giving the South equal numbers would eliminate the entire "tyranny of the Northern majority" ethic which was used to justify secession.
Grandstander hit the nail on the head but getting back to the OP...
The mere concept of conscription is contradictory to everything the Southern States were fighting for. They succeeded at least partly to escape the tyranny of big government but in the end, their own form of government adopted the same tyrannical policies as the one they were trying to LEAVE. ironic isn't it.
Had they equal numbers, there would not have been a war.
To inflate the Confederate army to the same size as the Federal force, implies that the South had an equal population base from which to recruit soldiers. If the populations were equal, I cannot see how President Lincoln could still have been elected. No Lincoln, no secession, no secession, no war.
Giving the South equal numbers would eliminate the entire "tyranny of the Northern majority" ethic which was used to justify secession.
Right. The North had the numbers.
Even so, the South wanted it worse. Far worse. For the most part, the South had superior military leadership. Union leadership was still trying to succeed using strategies that were hundreds of years old.
Against staggering odds, the South nearly pulled it off. Had they had equal weaponry (which they were closer to having, 25 years prior) I believe they may very well have won the war.
The Southern politicians in the 1850s didn't believe that a strong federal government was the way to go. They were most definitely in the state's rights camp. And so, when they set up their own government, they made sure that the individual states had primacy over the central government. (And Jefferson Davis was a poor choice for President of the Confederacy in the second place; he was vain, and given to making what amounted to dictatorial pronouncements--which were then routinely ignored by the individual states).
They were set up to fail from the very beginning. There's not even any need to get into their lack of industrialization. When Northern armies began tearing up what little factories and railroads the Confederacy had, it was all over but the shouting.
It is interesting to read contemporary arguments by libertarians and neo-anti-federalist that write in favor of secession and how those arguments closely mirror the political sentiments expressed by secessionist prior to and during the Civil War. However, what these contemporary arguments fail to acknowledge is the historical evidence of how those sentiments were actually put into practice by the confederacy proved to be a significant contributing factor leading to its defeat. The inability of the confederacy to effectively enforce conscription, raise money, or even direct the deployment of state militias without the cooperation of the various state governments are just a few examples all couched in terms of states' rights proved the confederacy to be ungovernable just as the United States under the Articles of Confederation proved to be an ineffective form of national government, and as the European Union demonstrates today.
Your thoughts?
This is Paul Escott's argument in his book, After Secession: Jeff Davis and the Failure of Confederate Nationalism.
What most Americans probably do not realize nor consider is that the Union of states that comprised the original United States was a rather forced thing to begin with. The only reason the colonies "united" was for the mutual purpose of ridding the colonies of British oversight. The colonies (now considered independent "states" after July 4, 1776) formed a confederacy that had essentially 13 sovereign governments. After the Revolutionary War, many Americans believed that this confederacy would eventually fail.
Not only that, but this confederacy or Union of states covered only those areas along the Atlantic seaboard. The "old Southwest" that is Alabama, Mississippi, many believed, would become its own country independent of the United States.
The Federal Union, organized after the ratification of the United States Constitution, angered many, who then sat back and waited until it broke apart. The Hartford Convention of states in the northeast was just one early attempt at forming independent countries out of land that had been a part of the original United States.
In short, secession and other independencies has long been a belief and goal among many Americans across vast expanses of time. I believe H.W. Brands takes this idea up and explores it in his new book about Aaron Burr.
So then... You're just posting to hear you argue with yourself. Thanks for the clarification.
A 25-year earlier start to the Civil War would have had FAR greater implications than any supposed anti-federal mindset by the Confederate States. The South had no real problem rallying the troops, after Union Armies invaded their states. And they almost won anyway, despite the superior numbers and artillery of the North. Had they had equal weaponry and/or numbers, the war would have turned out differently.
The southern Confederacy had tremendous problems rallying the troops, especially after Shiloh, which led to various conscription acts. And as others have clearly stated, conscription belied the most commonplace ideas southerners had of proper governance.
Desertion was also a huge problem for the Confederacy and its state governments.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
