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.
So would you say that their perception didn't rise to the level of oppression that the colonists experienced in 1774?
I would say their fear of oppression rose to roughly the same level as the revolutionaries. And I would say their fear was valid. The political reality was that the federal legislature was already dominated by the North, the 1860 election showcased the ability of the North to control the executive branch, and since the judiciary is largely appointed by the executive branch, it was only a matter of time before the entire federal system would be controlled by the North. A region of the country that had completely different political, economic, and social goals than the South.
The Republican party was on the ballot in Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, and Maryland. Lincoln did very poorly in those states, only about 10% in Missouri and low single digits in the other states mentioned.
Lincoln also wasn't on the ballot in South Carolina - but then, nobody was on the ballot in South Carolina. The birthplace of the secession movement and defender of state rights didn't choose its presidential electors by popular ballot but instead had its state legislature hand-pick them.
The whole "Lincoln didn't even try to get on Southern ballots!" is a nonsensical canard. Lincoln was a member of the Republican Party - parties, not individuals, obtain ballot access for their candidates (excepting those who run independently, without a party - obviously, this did not apply to Abraham Lincoln).
And as for the party, well, the Republican Party did not even form in the states of the deep South until after the Civil War. For example, the Republican Party of Alabama was founded in 1867. It should hardly surprise anyone that a party formed primarily as an anti-slavery party would not bother to open a chapter in Alabama in 1860 - this was be as pointless as the Parti Quebecois wasting resources running candidates in Alberta.
Beyond all that, most people don't realize that abolitionist organizations and publications were suppressed in the South. It was generally unlawful to advocate abolition. Most people don't realize that prior to 1925 the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment and the Freedom of Speech clause) was held to apply only to the federal government. States were entirely free to ban speech. And in regards to advocating abolition, the Southern states did precisely that. So it would be rather difficult for an abolitionist party to even function in the South - and that's not even getting into the extra-judicial 'encouragement' that Republicans in the South would have received to pack up and head back north. As such, it is quite precise to say that, if the Republican Party was or had it been inclined to run candidates in the South, it would have been effectively prevented from doing so by both enacted laws as well as the usual sort of terror employed in the South to deal with those who opposed slavery and dared to articulate as much.
The whole "Lincoln didn't even try to get on Southern ballots!" is a nonsensical canard. Lincoln was a member of the Republican Party - parties, not individuals, obtain ballot access for their candidates (excepting those who run independently, without a party - obviously, this did not apply to Abraham Lincoln).
Which still does not take away anything from the fact that the South was faced with a political reality of dwindling influence in the federal government. A situation that was progressive and largely irreversible.
I would say their fear of oppression rose to roughly the same level as the revolutionaries.
The huge difference is that the colonists in Boston weren't fearing oppression, but were actually experiencing it.
Quote:
And I would say their fear was valid.
Which I will take as an admission that there was no actual oppression by the national government upon the Southern states in 1860.
Quote:
The political reality was that the federal legislature was already dominated by the North, the 1860 election showcased the ability of the North to control the executive branch, and since the judiciary is largely appointed by the executive branch, it was only a matter of time before the entire federal system would be controlled by the North. A region of the country that had completely different political, economic, and social goals than the South.
So we agree that the South, a population minority of the nation for decades, would no longer dominate the national government. However, the nation was a republic and was pledged to protect the rights of all its citizens. What exactly did the South expect to happen to them now that they no longer held absolute veto power at the national level via the Senate or Presidency?
The huge difference is that the colonists in Boston weren't fearing oppression, but were actually experiencing it.
I'm not trying to minimize the oppression that the colonists experienced, but specifically, we're speaking about the colonists' outrage over a British parliament passing laws that governed the colonies while the colonists had no representation in that parliament. Eventually, a seat was given to a single colonists' representative, Benjamin Franklin, in the lower house of parliament, but clearly that was insufficient. Only about a third of colonists actually rebelled against England. It wasn't a sense of oppression that every colonist felt.
The South was facing a future where their representation would be insufficient to have any impact on actual policy as well. And what they expected was for their influence to dwindle even more over time. That's a bleak political future, and a bleak political future that could have much greater implications to the region.
Slavery was a pivotal issue, to be sure, because it wasn't simply a moral issue, and because the divide over the issue fell along the regional/cultural/economic dichotomy, the issue needs to be examined in a deeper, more thorough context.
If any Republican had attempted to register on the ballot in any Southern state, do you believe that the local authorities would have allowed it? If on the ballot, do you think that Republican political speakers campaigning in the South would have been safe from hostiles in the crowds? I think that it would be safe to say that the Republicans were "discouraged" from organizing local political parties in the South.
I'm not trying to minimize the oppression that the colonists experienced, but specifically, we're speaking about the colonists' outrage over a British parliament passing laws that governed the colonies while the colonists had no representation in that parliament.
So can we agree that the Southern justification for secession was well below the Colonial justification for independence?
Quote:
Eventually, a seat was given to a single colonists' representative, Benjamin Franklin, in the lower house of parliament, but clearly that was insufficient.
Neither Benjamin Franklin nor any other American was ever given a seat in Parliament. Franklin was in London acting as a representative agent for several colonial assemblies. In today's terms, he was a paid lobbyist.
And the Colonial position was that taxation of the Colonists could only be enacted by the Colonial governments, in accordance with the concept of British liberty that only representatives of the people could enact taxes upon the people. Granting the colonies a few seats in a Parliament over 3000 miles away from the colonies didn't meet the colonists' expectations of representation.
Quote:
Only about a third of colonists actually rebelled against England. It wasn't a sense of oppression that every colonist felt.
The claim of one third comes from one of the founding fathers (I want to say John Adams, but I may be wrong), made in passing and well after the Revolutionary War was over. Historians now believe that about half of the colonists supported independence, a quarter opposed it, and another quarter had no opinion. These numbers varied of course, with regard to time, geography, ethnic heritage, and proximity to British troops.
Quote:
The South was facing a future where their representation would be insufficient to have any impact on actual policy as well. And what they expected was for their influence to dwindle even more over time. That's a bleak political future, and a bleak political future that could have much greater implications to the region.
That's an awfully inadequate reason to declare secession, seize federal assets, and shell a federal military installation.
Quote:
Slavery was a pivotal issue, to be sure, because it wasn't simply a moral issue, and because the divide over the issue fell along the regional/cultural/economic dichotomy, the issue needs to be examined in a deeper, more thorough context.
Lincoln pledged that his administration would not molest slavery where it existed, but to contain it only to those areas where it did exist. That tells me that the Southern states were in no immediate danger of losing their property rights.
So can we agree that the Southern justification for secession was well below the Colonial justification for independence?
No. Clearly in your mind there was no justification for secession, and I think secession was a foolhardy remedy to what was transpiring politically, but the people at the time, who were faced with the political and economic reality, felt justified. And I understand why they felt that way. Their grandfathers had fought for something that was slipping from their grasp.
Neither Benjamin Franklin nor any other American was ever given a seat in Parliament. Franklin was in London acting as a representative agent for several colonial assemblies. In today's terms, he was a paid lobbyist.
I phrased that badly. The colonists didn't have a seat in Parliament. But Franklin was an agent to Parliament on behalf of colonists, and he played a crucial role in having the Stamp Act repealed.
And the Colonial position was that taxation of the Colonists could only be enacted by the Colonial governments, in accordance with the concept of British liberty that only representatives of the people could enact taxes upon the people. Granting the colonies a few seats in a Parliament over 3000 miles away from the colonies didn't meet the colonists' expectations of representation.
At issue was not just taxation, though that was a pivotal issue. The issue was a government across an ocean making policy for colonists who lived lives the people in Parliament could barely conceive of, those policies having implications and impact the people in Parliament could not understand. A government so displaced can never be just because it is so distant from the people it tries to govern.
The claim of one third comes from one of the founding fathers (I want to say John Adams, but I may be wrong), made in passing and well after the Revolutionary War was over. Historians now believe that about half of the colonists supported independence, a quarter opposed it, and another quarter had no opinion. These numbers varied of course, with regard to time, geography, ethnic heritage, and proximity to British troops.
The fact remains, not all the colonists felt oppressed.
That's an awfully inadequate reason to declare secession, seize federal assets, and shell a federal military installation.
To you and me that may be an inadequate reason to declare secession. And to claim "federal assets", or to shell a military installation occupied by federal forces which had previously agreed to abandon said military installation, but then being ordered to stay. Of course, the Confederates instructed the federal forces of when the shelling would begin, where they would be aiming the shells, so as to avoid hurting any of the federal forces.
Lincoln pledged that his administration would not molest slavery where it existed, but to contain it only to those areas where it did exist. That tells me that the Southern states were in no immediate danger of losing their property rights.
Lincoln's pledges should have made a difference. But to the Southern states, immediate or imminent made no difference. In the context of history, they were outnumbered in the federal government, and ultimately that meant either a long, drawn-out stripping of their power, or they could cut their losses now. Realistically, there were other options available, but the secessionists simply saw those other options as part of the long, drawn-out winnowing of their political influence. And they may have had a point.
So can we agree that the Southern justification for secession was well below the Colonial justification for independence?
No. Clearly in your mind there was no justification for secession, and I think secession was a foolhardy remedy to what was transpiring politically, but the people at the time, who were faced with the political and economic reality, felt justified. And I understand why they felt that way. Their grandfathers had fought for something that was slipping from their grasp.
No, there are good reasons for rebellion, for revolution, and for secession - I'd be a fool to deny it. What I do deny is that in late 1860/early 1861 the Southern states had a good reason to declare secession.
And again, IMO the equivocation between the American Revolution and Southern Secession is at best an extremely contorted justification and at worst an outright mendacity.
...the Colonial position was that taxation of the Colonists could only be enacted by the Colonial governments, in accordance with the concept of British liberty that only representatives of the people could enact taxes upon the people. Granting the colonies a few seats in a Parliament over 3000 miles away from the colonies didn't meet the colonists' expectations of representation.
At issue was not just taxation, though that was a pivotal issue. The issue was a government across an ocean making policy for colonists who lived lives the people in Parliament could barely conceive of, those policies having implications and impact the people in Parliament could not understand. A government so displaced can never be just because it is so distant from the people it tries to govern.
Taxation was the reason that started the rebellion. But the rebellion became about more than taxes, thus a declaration of independence and a revolution.
Historians now believe that about half of the colonists supported independence, a quarter opposed it, and another quarter had no opinion. These numbers varied of course, with regard to time, geography, ethnic heritage, and proximity to British troops.
The fact remains, not all the colonists felt oppressed.
That's very true, a very few didn't feel oppressed. Many felt oppressed but didn't believe in rebellion. Many believed in rebellion but not revolution. The rough majority did eventually believe in revolution.
That's an awfully inadequate reason to declare secession, seize federal assets, and shell a federal military installation.
To you and me that may be an inadequate reason to declare secession. And to claim "federal assets", or to shell a military installation occupied by federal forces which had previously agreed to abandon said military installation, but then being ordered to stay. Of course, the Confederates instructed the federal forces of when the shelling would begin, where they would be aiming the shells, so as to avoid hurting any of the federal forces.
I must admit to having a hard time wrapping my head around 'federal forces which had previously agreed to abandon said military installation'. The federal forces were answerable only the the President of the United States, not to the government of the Confederacy and not to the Government of South Carolina. Any such agreement made would at best be unenforceable and at worst a commanding officer overstepping his authority. The problem was that only the President of the U.S. could make such an agreement, and he wasn't about to be agreeable. But I do agree that the shelling of Fort Sumter was a rather bloodless affair.
Lincoln pledged that his administration would not molest slavery where it existed, but to contain it only to those areas where it did exist. That tells me that the Southern states were in no immediate danger of losing their property rights.
Lincoln's pledges should have made a difference. But to the Southern states, immediate or imminent made no difference. In the context of history, they were outnumbered in the federal government, and ultimately that meant either a long, drawn-out stripping of their power, or they could cut their losses now. Realistically, there were other options available, but the secessionists simply saw those other options as part of the long, drawn-out winnowing of their political influence. And they may have had a point.
The South had long ago lost an equal representation in the House of Representatives. In the late 1850's, the South began to lose an equal representation in the Senate. It was inevitable that the South would lose control of the Presidency. According to this theory of lost influence, secession was inevitable, yet the entire South didn't secede. This tells me that a good many Southerners didn't buy into the concept of inevitable oppression, or at least inevitable marginalization.
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.
