Gandhi's Way...

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
What if President Davis had not authorized the attack on Ft. Sumter and he stopped the confiscation of federal property within the newly formed Confederacy?

This has huge repercussion because without firing on Ft. Sumter, Pres. Lincoln would not have order the forming of an army. Without ordering the forming of an army Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and a few other states may not have seceded.

What if Pres. Lincoln attacks first it might divided the northern states and the cause other southern and border states to secede from the union.

Would could President Lincoln do to preserve the union if President Davis behaved like Gandhi?

I think if the leaders of the Confederacy had used a passive approach it would cause great grief for Pres. Lincoln and preserving the union. If the Confederacy had left Federal property alone, what could he do to keep the union from falling apart.


The Gandhi way would have brought independence to the states that seceded..


Pondering Gandhi....
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
What if President Davis had not authorized the attack on Ft. Sumter and he stopped the confiscation of federal property within the newly formed Confederacy?

This has huge repercussion because without firing on Ft. Sumter, Pres. Lincoln would not have order the forming of an army. Without ordering the forming of an army Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and a few other states may not have seceded.

What if Pres. Lincoln attacks first it might divided the northern states and the cause other southern and border states to secede from the union.

Would could President Lincoln do to preserve the union if President Davis behaved like Gandhi?

I think if the leaders of the Confederacy had used a passive approach it would cause great grief for Pres. Lincoln and preserving the union. If the Confederacy had left Federal property alone, what could he do to keep the union from falling apart.


The Gandhi way would have brought independence to the states that seceded..


Pondering Gandhi....
You might very well be right . Fortunately in a way Those Southeners who supported secession were believed might makes right which is quite sensible but secessionists just weren't mighty enough to pull secession off.
Leftyhunter
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
If turning the other cheek was going to work for the rebels, Jeff Davis was not their guy. Prickly, jealous of his prerogatives, quick to take offense and unmovable in his grudges, Davis was a polar opposite to Ghandi. The Ghandi approach requires infinite patience of which Davis had little. The long game was never Davis' long suit. Had he not ordered the firing on Sumter, Lincoln (who was patient) would have found another way to goad him into doing something to make the rebels appear to be the instigators.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
Martin Luther King used many of Ghandi's principles to great effect and achieved many goals peacefully. It showed how oppressive the system was and what it was based on when the full force of it landed on somebody just trying to eat a sandwich. This was shown by the press, too. King was able to illustrate why the system needed to collapse and be replaced.

Jefferson Davis and company were the system! They could not use Ghandi's methods. The fire-eaters were what they used - the exact opposite. They wished to whip up emotions and convince people they were being victimized by a brutal regime run by not-our-president bent on destroying their prosperous way of life. Bring it on seemed to be their motto!
 

Matt McKeon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,602
As Malcolm X once observed: In India a white mouse was on a black elephant. Once the Indians united themselves and did not want to be ruled by Britain, then it was a matter of time. Gandhi did not try to militarily engage an enemy with a first class army, because that was not who he was. But non-violence was also effective, as the British began to lose the moral struggle, even in their own eyes, against the Indians.

KIng's demonstrations engaged in regional issues, like voter registration. He contrived dramas for television with good guys and bad guys. He won the moral struggle in the eyes of the white television audience, especially the one man audience in the White House. King couldn't have succeeded as much as he did without gaining that support.

After Alabama state troopers went ballistic on the Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday, a lot of angry black Selma men wanted to go home and get their guns. Andrew Young remembers "talking them down" by pointing out they were outgunned by the police. They couldn't win an open gun battle. They had already won the confrontation on the bridge.

If Davis wanted to protect the prerogatives of slave owners within the United States, he had access to every instrument and power that moneyed white men had in 19th century America. But once he decided to leave the USA, he chose the sword. Given the society he lived in and the mores of the rest of the United States, its hard to imagine anything else. We aren't a nation of pacifists.

When white southerners opposed Reconstruction governments, they made good and sure that they didn't engage United States soldiers, but used murder and intimidation against "soft" targets. They didn't employ "soul power" or sit ins. Like Diane says above, they weren't fighting for justice, they were fighting for supremacy.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
What if President Davis had not authorized the attack on Ft. Sumter and he stopped the confiscation of federal property within the newly formed Confederacy?

This has huge repercussion because without firing on Ft. Sumter, Pres. Lincoln would not have order the forming of an army. Without ordering the forming of an army Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and a few other states may not have seceded.

What if Pres. Lincoln attacks first it might divided the northern states and the cause other southern and border states to secede from the union.

Would could President Lincoln do to preserve the union if President Davis behaved like Gandhi?

I think if the leaders of the Confederacy had used a passive approach it would cause great grief for Pres. Lincoln and preserving the union. If the Confederacy had left Federal property alone, what could he do to keep the union from falling apart.


The Gandhi way would have brought independence to the states that seceded..


Pondering Gandhi....
Also keep in mind that Gandhi was not a pacifist by any means. Gandhi while Prime Minister of India unlike post WWII Costa Rica did not disband it's military that it inherited from the British. The Indian military was always funded more or less as best it could be and has fought various wars against Pakistan and China.
We can't know if Gandhian tactics would of worked for Confederate secession because they were never tried .
Many Indians today disdain Gandhian tactics and instead admire Chanda Bose who formed the Indian Liberation Army which composed mostly of Indian troops captured by the Japanese Army in Singapore fought side by side the Japanese Army in Burma and India.
Bose fled to Germany during the early part of WWII and Hitler actually ordered a U Boat to transport him to the U Boat base in Jakarta then Bose made his way to Burma.
Kirk's Raiders
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
There was a lot involved in the civil rights movement - for example, other minorities. The famous picture of Rosa Parks sitting on the bus shows a man sitting behind her. He is a Choctaw civil rights activist - it's not much publicized that a large number of Southern Indians were involved in that movement. 'Colored' meant us, too! We'd already tried the shoot 'em all let God sort 'em out...and we were sure sorted out. Peaceful resistance was very much the key to freedom.

1588012747117.png
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
I think if the South original seven just kept the guns put away they could have achieve something more than a war ...
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
I think if the South original seven just kept the guns put away they could have achieve something more than a war ...
How exactly? Either The US has customs houses in Southern harbors or they don't. Either slavery is expanded or it's not.
Kirk's Raiders
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,412
Reaction score
3,045
I think they needed duct tape for the fire-eaters' mouths! There's a when and a way to use your mouth - can't say those orators did either right.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Here a tidbit of pacifists knowledge... Lincoln did this!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shake...h,conscientious objectors in American history.

snip...

As pacifists,[nb 1] the Shakers did not believe that it was acceptable to kill or harm others, even in time of war. As a result, the Civil War brought with it a strange time for the Shaker communities in America. Both Union and Confederate soldiers found their way to the Shaker communities. Shakers tended to sympathize with the Union but they did feed and care for both Union and Confederate soldiers. President Lincoln exempted Shaker males from military service, and they became some of the first conscientious objectors in American history.

The end of the Civil War
brought large changes to the Shaker communities. One of the most important changes was the postwar economy.[17] The Shakers had a hard time competing in the industrialized economy that followed the Civil War. With prosperity falling, converts were hard to find.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Seventh- Day Adventist follow Non-Combatancy... registered it in 1864...

What Does Non-Combatancy Mean?
The Seventh-day Adventist Church officially organized during a tragic civil war that divided the United States of America (1861-1865). Early in their denominational formation Adventists were confronted with the dilemma of how to fulfill civic and faith relationships responsibly, especially when temporal and religious obligations were in apparent conflict. After much prayerful and thorough study early church leaders concluded that the best position to adopt was the principle of non-combatancy. This stance was officially registered with the United States federal government in 1864 and has remained the position of Seventh-day Adventists ever since.
Non-combatant service and training is defined as follows:
1. The term “non-combatant service” shall mean (a) service in any unit of the armed forces which is unarmed at all times; (b) service in the medical department of any of the armed forces, wherever performed; or (c) any other assignment of the primary function of which does not require the use of arms in combat; provided that such other assignment is acceptable to the individual concerned and does not require them to bear arms or to be trained in their use.
2. The term “non-combatant training” shall mean any training which is not concerned with the study, use, or handling of arms or weapons.
The official position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church was reaffirmed by action taken at the 1972 Annual Council of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists held 14 – 29 October in Mexico City, Mexico.
The statement reads:
“Genuine Christianity manifests itself in good citizenship and loyalty to civil government. The breaking out of war among men in no way alters the Christian’s supreme allegiance and responsibility to God or modifies their obligation to practice their beliefs and put God first.
This partnership with God through Jesus Christ who came into this world not to destroy men’s lives but to save them causes Seventh-day Adventists to advocate a noncombatant position, following their divine Master in not taking human life, but rendering all possible service to save it. As they accept the obligation of citizenship as well as its benefits, their loyalty to government requires them willingly to serve the state in any noncombatant capacity, civil or military, in war or peace, in uniform or out of it, which will contribute to saving life, asking only that they may serve in those capacities which do not violate their conscientious convictions.”
This statement is not a rigid position binding church members, but gives guidance leaving the individual member free to assess the situation for her or himself.
When national laws permit options, church members, in making a personal decision on how to fulfill obligated terms of service to their country, should first consider the historic teaching of the Church on non-combatancy. If because of personal convictions they choose otherwise, pastors, chaplains, teachers, or other church workers should aid the member in satisfying any legal requirements for securing their choice and should minister to the member’s spiritual needs as follows:
a. For those choosing civilian alternative service in lieu of military service, pastoral counsel and guidance should be provided when it is established that such a request is based on consistent religious experience. Pastors, chaplains, teachers, or other church workers should provide statements of their personal knowledge of the member’s position on the following:
(1) church membership,
(2) attendance and participation in services of the church,
(3) personal standards of conduct,
(4) previous expressions of belief supporting the request for exemption. Those providing such statements should request government officials to respect and honor the individual’s personal convictions.
b. For those who conscientiously choose military service as a combatant, pastoral counsel and guidance should be provided in ministering to their needs since the Church refrains from passing judgment on them.
Notice that the Seventh-day Adventist Church advocates a non-combatant position, but does not require it. Thus, some church members are willing to train with and use weapons; while others cannot, because of their own individual conscience, have anything to do with weapons or military service. Historically, most Seventh-day Adventists have served as non-combatant medics for several reasons: (1) Such service minimizes Sabbath conflicts (saving and maintaining life is honorable on Sabbath), and (2) Such service is more in harmony with the Church’s stated recommendation.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not seek to be the conscience for any member or commander. But we do seek to inform the conscience and behavior of both, so decisions can be made with maximum understanding and thought.

 
Top