|View single post by Unionblue|
|Posted: Mon Nov 30th, 2009 01:32 am||
|Texas Defender wrote:
Really? It seems very predictable, given SC's history of agitation over the tariff issue during the 1830s. A very excitable state in hindsight, yes?
I believe that even if such a presence was tolerated, another incident in another place would have triggered hostilities. In my view, Mr. Lincoln would never have recognized the separation and needed an attack against federal property in order to justify raising an army. So, I can't envision an extended peace from either direction.
Speculation, is it not, TD? This is why I prefer to deal with established history and facts that we can verify. We can imagine anything we like, but we are left with the history that actually ocurred.
As for the additional states, in such a most unlikely scenario we can only speculate on who might have seceded and when. Some states that didn't eventually secede might have done so in time (such as MD). We can't know.
But we do know there was agitation and advice given to Davis to take action, to "sprinkle blood" in the faces of the South, so that additional states WOULD leave the Union and join a weak, seven-state Confederacy. History tells us so.
I believe that those who seceded thought that they were presented with the same kind of choice that the colonists had in 1776- which was to submit to the Crown or fight. They saw Mr. Lincoln as saying: "First submit to federal authority, and then we'll discuss your grievances." They felt that they had the right to leave, and they did.
And I know that there were differences between the Revolution of 1776 and the Rebellion of 1861 and that they were no where near in principle or action to one another. What rights were being denied the South? What representation in the federal government did it lack? Which State governments were overthrown? What State officials and legislatures were disbanded and in their place federal appointees placed? What heavy taxes were being borne by the South? As for their right to leave, we have already seen various attempts at secession, mainly in words, turned back time and time again by other Presidents, SOUTHERN Presidents, before 1861, and by threat of military force if need be. We see a Southern Supreme Court Justice who favored the South and rendered the Dred Scott descion come out against the idea the secession was permitted by the Constitution. If they felt they had a right to leave, history had already given lessons on that supposed right and it was denied before.
Since the Constitution does not mention secession, the question of whether or not they had that right will be argued ad infinitum.
I believe it has already been argued and the question has been resolved.
If it had been submitted with the idea of a peaceful solution it might have been different, but we both know that is pure speculation, as we are left with the historical results of unilateral secession.
Until our next post,
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.