The Two Horns of Dilemma

[unionblue]

Wild Rose,

I am reffering to the Civil War.  As the South was never recognized as a separate country and as the subsequent actions that resulted in it's defeat to become such, I submit the United States demonstrated that it could not abide with the idea of two separate countries existing in the same nation.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[ole]

I don't really believe that.  I was asking for opinions and reasons why that was not feasible.

For more than a couple of years, you have been holding forth that separation was feasible. It is a bit disingenuous for you to now maintain that you don't really believe that.

Unionblue did a shorthand version in that nothing good could come of dissimilar countries sharing an artificial border. I won't go through all the details (I don't grasp them fully, myself) The Founders were well aware of geographical borders defining what was a viable country. The UK became a viable country because of the English Channel, Switzerland was able to sit out very nearly everything because of the Alps. There were topographical barriers separating European Nations.

By the time the Founders were looking at nationhood, the Ohio and the Potomac and the Appalachians did not present the kind of barrier they might have 500 years before. Essentially, the colonies, without a channel or the equivalent of the Alps between them, must be one country. Without significant natural separation, there would be constant conflict, if not war, among them. The inability of the Articles of Confederation to surmount those difficulties, it became quite apparent that a stronger national bond was required.

Fractionalization was not in the cards. Not from the day the separate settlements made their first colonies and began interacting. They became interdependent. We want your tobacco, you want our shoes. The nation developed along those lines.

Historically, nations without natural borders have disagreed, argued, and made war. The founders were aware of that. They worked their butts off for a long time to make a document on which most everyone could agree. They did not work that hard and that long on an agreement that could be tossed off unilaterally.

ole

[Johan Steele]

What cultural event would have lead to Emancipation in the South w/out Civil War & Lincoln's EP?

What social event would have lead to Emancipation in the South w/out Civil War & Lincoln's EP?

What economic event would have lead to Emancipation in the South w/out Civil War & Lincoln's EP?

What religious event would have lead to Emancipation in the South w/out Civil War & Lincoln's EP?

After years of bantering on countless boards... I've never seen an answer that made real sense.  I eagerly wait yours Rose.

[ole]

Ought to apologize to our brethren across the pond. I use, profusely, idiomatic expressions uniquely appropo to this side of the pond. For example "hinkey" over here means "on unstable ground" or "highly questionable." But that's just one example.

I'd be delighted to clarify any word or phase in a more international flavor, if requested.. Just ask. I promise to take off my officious, grouchy hat when replying. PMs will also be cheerfully accepted.

ole

[Wild Rose]

As the South was never recognized as a separate country and as the subsequent actions that resulted in it's defeat to become such, I submit the United States demonstrated that it could not abide with the idea of two separate countries existing in the same nation.

But perhaps if there had been two countries from the very begining....

In 1861 the Union had something to lose if she allowed the Southern states their freedom.  In 1776 there was nothing to lose and we weren't one nation at that time.

Rose

[Wild Rose]

For more than a couple of years, you have been holding forth that separation was feasible. It is a bit disingenuous for you to now maintain that you don't really believe that.

My apologies.  I meant to say I don’t necessarily believe that…the jury is still out for me.  That is why I asked for opinions as to why it wasn’t feasible to settle the problem before we became one nation.  Of course, I believe the South had a right to be free from the Union and that it was feasible to co-exist as separate nations. At the beginning, some colonies simply wouldn’t have ratified the Constitution if slavery had been made illegal. Wasn’t it a bit disingenuous for the Union to get the pro-slave colonies in the Union and then turn the tables?

Unionblue did a shorthand version in that nothing good could come of dissimilar countries sharing an artificial border. I won't go through all the details (I don't grasp them fully, myself) The Founders were well aware of geographical borders defining what was a viable country. The UK became a viable country because of the English Channel, Switzerland was able to sit out very nearly everything because of the Alps. There were topographical barriers separating European Nations.

Unionblue made an interesting point.  I don’t have enough knowledge about borders to argue that point and I confess that world history isn’t my strong point. I do know that Europe and South America is a continent of small countries that seem to have survived shared borders and not all of them were separated by topographical barriers.

By the time the Founders were looking at nationhood, the Ohio and the Potomac and the Appalachians did not present the kind of barrier they might have 500 years before. Essentially, the colonies, without a channel or the equivalent of the Alps between them, must be one country. Without significant natural separation, there would be constant conflict, if not war, among them. The inability of the Articles of Confederation to surmount those difficulties, it became quite apparent that a stronger national bond was required.

This is where it becomes sticky.  The founders were divided (mostly) into two groups.  Those for strong central government and those for minimal central government.  They necessarily had to make compromises in order to write a Constitution that would be accepted by all colonies if we were to be one nation. 

The Southern states viewed the Constitution as having minimal power over sovereign states as per the tenth amendment.  That is what they agreed to.  They (naively perhaps) didn’t foresee that one section would become the aggressors in order to mold the government into the strong centralized system that their federalist fore-fathers wanted it to be from the beginning.

Fractionalization was not in the cards. Not from the day the separate settlements made their first colonies and began interacting. They became interdependent. We want your tobacco, you want our shoes. The nation developed along those lines.

Tobacco and shoes could have been (and were)traded between separate nations.  The colonies were separate and sovereign.  Many countries are dependent on another for some commodity, product or other.

Historically, nations without natural borders have disagreed, argued, and made war. The founders were aware of that. They worked their butts off for a long time to make a document on which most everyone could agree. They did not work that hard and that long on an agreement that could be tossed off unilaterally.

But they did toss that agreement off.  The prohibition of secession is glaringly absent from the Constitution, yet one section of the nation forced the other section to remain under their government.

Excellent points, but I’m not completely convinced. 

"If the right of secession be denied...and the denial enforced by the sword of coercion; the nature of the polity is changed, and freedom is at its end. It is no longer a government by consent, but a government of force. Conquest is substituted compact, and the dream of liberty is over." --Albert Taylor Bledsoe

Rose

[Wild Rose]

What cultural event would have lead to Emancipation in the South w/out Civil War & Lincoln's EP?

We will never know since it wasn't allowed to happen.

What social event would have lead to Emancipation in the South w/out Civil War & Lincoln's EP?

We will never know since it wasn't allowed to happen.

What economic event would have lead to Emancipation in the South w/out Civil War & Lincoln's EP?

We will never know since it wasn't allowed to happen.

What religious event would have lead to Emancipation in the South w/out Civil War & Lincoln's EP?

We will never know since it wasn't allowed to happen.

After years of bantering on countless boards... I've never seen an answer that made real sense.  I eagerly wait yours Rose.

Of course you haven't.  It would take a psychic to answer those questions.  Since I don't believe in psychic abilities to that extent I'd have to say no one can answer those questions with certainty. 

What cultural, social, economic or religious event lead to emancipation in England or any of the other dozens of countries it was practiced in?  The answers will differ from country to country but the history of those countries holds the answer.  Not so with the Southern states of America.

In 1860 the attitude about slavery was changing from that of the 1700's.  With prominent, respected Southerners speaking against slavery and leading by example, slavery wouldn't have lasted into the next century, IMO. And it's often forgotten or overlooked that more than 75% of Southern families did not own slaves.

Susan Ellis notes that in 1827 "out of the known 130 [anti-slavery] groups, 106 were southern."

Terry Matthews states: "from 1808-1831, the South was the leader in the anti-slavery movement with the opposition to slavery being better organized in the South than in the North. Societies were founded in Kentucky in 1808, Tennessee in 1815, and in North Carolina in 1816. By 1826, just ten years later, North Carolina had become the home of 45 of these anti-slavery societies. It is also interesting to note that the South was better served by anti-slavery newspapers than the North, and many of these publications were printed with little or no opposition. Moreover, the South was the home to a strong free black community populated by carpenters, day laborers, and seamstresses."

The mood against slavery persisted (in muted form), even as late as the 1850's, to such an extent that Senator Thomas Hart Benton could assert the South had almost no outright proponents of slavery in the abstract. That is, history had stuck them with a situation from which it was very difficult to extract themselves, and they were left with making the most of circumstances they themselves knew were far from ideal.

Lincoln himself once wrote to Alexander Hamilton Stephens that were their situations reversed, the North would be acting just like the South acted. But few of the abolitionists could lower their voices long enough to think of such a thing. http://www.geocities.com/mclane65/henry-clay.html

I strongly encourage anyone to read the entire article.

Rose

[unionblue]

Wild Rose,

In your reply #164 above you write:

"But perhaps if there had been two countries from the very begining..."

I guess if the established past could be affected by wishes, they would matter.  My own wish would be, "Perhaps if there had been no slavery..."  And my wish would be just as effective on the already established, recorded, past.

You further write in that same post:

"In 1861 the United States had something to lose if she allowed the Southern states their freedom."

I'm sorry, when exactly did the Southern states "lose" their freedom?  Weren't there Southern presidents?  Senators?  Congressmen?  Supreme Court Justices?  The Southern states did not "lose" their freedom like one loses a wallet or a purse at a bus station.  They put it at extreme risk by exercising a choice they thought would cost them nothing.  They didn't lose anything, they threw it away.

"In 1776 there was nothing to lose and we weren't one nation at that time."

And yet, most all in every colony knew it was better to come together than remain apart.  From the first Continetial Congress right through until the Constitution was ratified, there was the ongoing effort to unite into one nation.  Odd, isn't it?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Henry Moon]

From "Harper's Weekly", January 31, 1863 issue, Page 67, Jefferson Davis' reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation:

JEFF DAVIS'S MESSAGE.
Jeff Davis has issued his annual Message to the rebel Congress. He speaks of the early determination of England, France, and other European Powers to confine themselves to recognizing the self-evident fact of the existence of a strict neutrality during the progress of the war, but draws from this the conclusion that their course of action was but an actual decision against the South, and in favor of the Union, at the same time tending to prolong hostilities. He denounces the conduct of the Union armies as atrocious and cruel.

HIS VIEWS OF THE PROCLAMATION.
In relation to President Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, he says he may well leave it to the instincts of that common humanity which a beneficent Creator has implanted in the breasts of our fellow-men of all countries to pass judgment on a measure of which several millions of human beings of an inferior race, peaceful and contented laborers in their sphere, are doomed to extermination; while, at the same time, they are encouraged to a general assassination of their masters by the insidious recommendation to abstain from violence, unless in necessary self-defense. Our own detestation of those who have attempted the most execrable massacre recorded in the history of guilty man is tinctured by a profound sentiment for the impotent rage which it discloses. As far as regards the action of this Government on such criminals as may attempt its execution, I confine myself to informing you that I shall, unless in your wisdom you deem some other course more expedient, deliver to the several State authorities all commissioned officers of the United States that may hereafter be captured by our forces in any of the States embraced in the proclamation, that they may be dealt with in accordance with the laws of those States, providing for the punishment of criminals engaged in exciting servile insurrections. In its political aspect this measure possesses great signification, and to it in this light I invite your attention. It affords to our people the complete and crowning proof of the true nature of the designs of the party which elevated to power the present occupant of the Presidential chair at Washington, and which sought to conceal its purposes by every variety of artful grace, and by the perfidious use of the most solemn and repeated pledges on every practicable occasion. He gives extracts from President Lincoln's inaugural, and comments fully upon the subsequent acts by Congress and the Administration.


Terry

[Wild Rose]

I guess if the established past could be affected by wishes, they would matter.  My own wish would be, "Perhaps if there had been no slavery..."  And my wish would be just as effective on the already established, recorded, past.

On that I can certainly agree but, I believe speculating is what we are doing here, not wishing.  If I had known I was wishing I wouldn't have squandered my wish.   More seriously, we are discussing "what ifs".  If there hadn't been slavery there would be no discussion.

I'm sorry, when exactly did the Southern states "lose" their freedom?  April 1865.  Weren't there Southern presidents?  Senators?  Congressmen?  Supreme Court Justices?  Yes, prior to declaring independence from the Union.The Southern states did not "lose" their freedom like one loses a wallet or a purse at a bus station.  Agreed. Freedom wasn't misplaced, it was taken by force.  They put it at extreme risk by exercising a choice they thought would cost them nothing.  I believe they understood the risk that there could be great cost but they hoped the Union would do the right thing and allow them their freedom.  They didn't lose anything, they threw it away. Never have I witnessed anyone work so hard, sacrifice so much and suffer so long in order to throw anything away.