"The meaning of "Union" in the mid-nineteenth century." Topic

Four minutes with Civil War Historian Gary Gallagher.

YouTube link

Well put and he's a very good historian.

Interesting, but one sided. It doesn't address the Southern perspective at all. Many people looked at the Union as a voluntary association of independent nations that could be dissolved or left by the members at any time. Several states, Virginia included, had clauses in their ratification legislation for the Constitution that specified that they could withdraw from the Union at any time.

I would also disagree that the ability to rise from dirt farmer to president was associated with 'Union'. People weren't drawn to this country from all over the world because of the Union but because of the economic opportunity of a free market.

Depends on how you read the fine print – it has been argued by scholars smarter than me that adopting the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation the states agreed to a level of government that was senior to states

As well, speaking as someone whose ancestors were drawn to the US, in addition to the opportunity there was the issue of getting away from a place where it was likely nothing good was going to happen to you or your family

Interesting, but one sided.

Is there another side of "Union"

It doesn't address the Southern perspective at all.

But he does, he says those who loved the Union thought the slave states were both anti democracy and mirrored the aristocracies and monarchies of Old Europe.

Many people looked at the Union as a voluntary association of independent nations that could be dissolved or left by the members at any time.

The CSA? By definition they were anti Union. Is this the other side of the Union you meant above?

Several states, Virginia included, had clauses in their ratification legislation for the Constitution that specified that they could withdraw from the Union at any time.

Besides VA, what other states did this?

I would also disagree that the ability to rise from dirt farmer to president was associated with 'Union'. People weren't drawn to this country from all over the world because of the Union but because of the economic opportunity of a free market.

This is false for several reasons but to limit my response to your statement about Free Market conditions in the USA, you are stating that it was the North that got most of the immigration because there was opportunity there and that there was no free market opportunity for workers in the South?

Or, by "Free Market", do you mean that slaves were free to their owners and created a market?

"Is there another side of "Union"

Yes, as I detailed in my post.

"Besides VA, what other states did this?"

From memory, Massachusetts. Remember, at one point during the War of 1812 the New England states talked of secession.

"Or, by "Free Market", do you mean that slaves were free to their owners and created a market?"

A statement of willful ignorance. By free market I mean exactly what it says. It was not a command economy, socialist, or communist.

Dn,

I think you are missing the point. This isn't about the Southern or Northern perspective. This is about what Union meant to many people in the North (and some in the South) at that time period. Dr. Gallagher is saying that you need to understand that in order to understand the Civil War.

OC,
I certainly may be wrong, perfection has never been one of my sins,. :-)

However, Dr. Gallagher states that we must understand what Union meant to 19th Century Americans. He doesn't specify Americans from the northern states. That's why I believe it is one sided, because it doesn't reflect what many southerners felt Union meant, an agreement that could be dissolved at will.

The context of that video is that the South already seceded and what does Union mean to both Northerners and immigrants.

That's why I believe it is one sided, because it doesn't reflect what many southerners felt Union meant, an agreement that could be dissolved at will.

By definition, this is impossible. This was the excuse the Confederates gave but it makes no sense.

Some of them may have believed this but that doesn't matter; even large numbers of people who feel or believe something that isn't true cannot make it so.

It is interesting (and ironic) that Unionists so much believed in democracy that they were willing to conquer and subjugate those who had democratically chosen to leave the United States.

By definition, this is impossible. This was the excuse the Confederates gave but it makes no sense.

Some of them may have believed this but that doesn't matter; even large numbers of people who feel or believe something that isn't true cannot make it so.

Do you see ADPC that irony of your comments above with respect to your own views? I wonder.

It is interesting (and ironic) that Unionists so much believed in democracy that they were willing to conquer and subjugate those who had democratically chosen to leave the United States.

As far as the USA is concerned, unilateral secession is the opposite of a democratic decision.

Do you see ADPC that irony of your comments above with respect to your own views? I wonder.

There is no irony; the seceding states got it wrong on several levels.

These aren't my own views, they are the views of the Constitution, the American government and a majority of its democratic people.

It is the view of Confederates and neo-confederates which are the minority view; further, a view made up and coexisting among other erroneous concepts served up as justification for pulling a power move for their own benefit.

Jackson,

He is talking about the North. Here is his book. I highly recommend it.

link

"It is interesting (and ironic) that Unionists so much believed in a democracy that they were willing to conquer and subjugate those who had democratically chosen to leave the United States."

From their point of view, they were not subjugating anyone. They were putting down an armed insurrection against the United States.

From their point of view, they were not subjugating anyone. They were putting down an armed insurrection against the United States.

I agree as long we remember there were two points of view.

I agree as long we remember there were two points of view.

By context in that video, the South has already seceded and Prof. Gallagher is speaking about what the Union means to both immigrants and Northerners.

With regards to this subjugating business, everyone knows someone who annoys them constantly and when they make you lash out, they act as if you've attacked them from nowhere and without justification.

Even the ringleaders in the South knew they were provoking the Union, it's a testament to their post war Lost Cause drivel that their modern day advocates believe they just wanted to be left alone to live free.

And, if they indeed had a point of view, what about it should we admire today?