Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - More confederacy debate, and now it's right across the lawn

jb2000 · 01-07-2005, 08:21 AM

I must take a second to share in the appreciation of this quality discussion. Thanks to Shani, Super, and everyone else for so many thoughtful and substantive posts!

Shani, thank you very much for bringing up the Ordinances of Secession. As could be expected, there is difference of opinion between folks on whether or not the secession was legally pursued. This is one reason I don't hold the view that the troops of the southern states should be considered traitors. A traitor knows that he is violating his allegiance. I hold this perspective for two of the reasons you mention. One is that the poor farmer boys could not reasonably be expected to believe their actions to be treasonable--quite the opposite. Two is that even amongst the educated in the South, the principles of how to dissolve the Union were not clear, and many felt justified that their proceedings were sufficient for legitimacy.

I don't agree that they were. The Ordinances of Secession were a product of early 1861. Federal property was seized pursuant to them during February, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, and consistent with his duties as President did not yield Federal territory and property. On April 12, 1861, South Carolinians siezed Fort Sumpter by force, thus ending the period of process and beginning the war.

Just a quick perusal of the amount of time given between secession and the start of hostilities leads one to think that there was not enough time to work out a peaceful dissolution of the Union. Of course the north was resistant to the idea, but that doesn't mean that if the South was not resolute that by the mid 1860s, they wouldn't have been successful in forging their secession without war. Maybe it would have failed and they would have had to resort to war at that point, but by then, the justification for war would be solid. As I said before, I don't support violent secession, unless that is all legal and non-violent means are exhausted. Three months is hardly time enough to exhaust all of those (or frankly any of those) avenues.

But all of these matters are above that of the soldier. Wars often are started over misunderstandings and due to mistakes by leaders on one (or usually both) sides of an issue. Soldiers fight for the side they happen to be standing on. That's just the way it works, and its not really reasonable to expect an 18 year old kid to behave differently. His state, country, town, whatever is in a war, and he's going to do his part. There is nothing dishonorable in that--it's the way we've raised our boys from Antiquity (and girls now too). Is every Wehrmacht soldier a war criminal because he fought to sustain Hitler's empire? Should we punish the conscripts of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan or American forces in Vietnam for the failings of their governments' policies? I would hope that we learned the fault in doing that during Vietnam (at least for America).

Thanks again, Shani, for the added information.

01-07-2005, 08:21 AM	#51 (permalink)
jb2000 Crazy Location: Allen, TX	I must take a second to share in the appreciation of this quality discussion. Thanks to Shani, Super, and everyone else for so many thoughtful and substantive posts! Shani, thank you very much for bringing up the Ordinances of Secession. As could be expected, there is difference of opinion between folks on whether or not the secession was legally pursued. This is one reason I don't hold the view that the troops of the southern states should be considered traitors. A traitor knows that he is violating his allegiance. I hold this perspective for two of the reasons you mention. One is that the poor farmer boys could not reasonably be expected to believe their actions to be treasonable--quite the opposite. Two is that even amongst the educated in the South, the principles of how to dissolve the Union were not clear, and many felt justified that their proceedings were sufficient for legitimacy. I don't agree that they were. The Ordinances of Secession were a product of early 1861. Federal property was seized pursuant to them during February, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, and consistent with his duties as President did not yield Federal territory and property. On April 12, 1861, South Carolinians siezed Fort Sumpter by force, thus ending the period of process and beginning the war. Just a quick perusal of the amount of time given between secession and the start of hostilities leads one to think that there was not enough time to work out a peaceful dissolution of the Union. Of course the north was resistant to the idea, but that doesn't mean that if the South was not resolute that by the mid 1860s, they wouldn't have been successful in forging their secession without war. Maybe it would have failed and they would have had to resort to war at that point, but by then, the justification for war would be solid. As I said before, I don't support violent secession, unless that is all legal and non-violent means are exhausted. Three months is hardly time enough to exhaust all of those (or frankly any of those) avenues. But all of these matters are above that of the soldier. Wars often are started over misunderstandings and due to mistakes by leaders on one (or usually both) sides of an issue. Soldiers fight for the side they happen to be standing on. That's just the way it works, and its not really reasonable to expect an 18 year old kid to behave differently. His state, country, town, whatever is in a war, and he's going to do his part. There is nothing dishonorable in that--it's the way we've raised our boys from Antiquity (and girls now too). Is every Wehrmacht soldier a war criminal because he fought to sustain Hitler's empire? Should we punish the conscripts of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan or American forces in Vietnam for the failings of their governments' policies? I would hope that we learned the fault in doing that during Vietnam (at least for America). Thanks again, Shani, for the added information. __________________ "Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy. Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. 'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see." - DTH