Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Burke Davis, in his book The Long Surrender on page 204, noted a quote by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, telling Edwin Stanton that "If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His (Jeff Davis') capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason."
So, secession is not rebellion???; at least, according to the Northern Chief Justice. So is the Chief Justice saying that the Constitution somehow allows secession.
I don't trust Burke Davis' scholarship on this. Look at rulings on secession in the Supreme Court that Chase either wrote himself or agreed to.
"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union." [74 US 700, 724-726]
And
"The doctrine of secession is a doctrine of treason, and practical secession is practical treason, seeking to give itself triumph by revolutionary violence. The late rebellion was without any element of right or sanction of law. The duration and magnitude of the war did not change its character. In some respects it was not unlike the insurrection of a county or other municipal subdivision of territory against the State to which it belongs. In such cases the State has inherently the right to use all the means necessary to put down the resistance to its authority, and restore peace, order, and obedience to law. If need be, it has the right also to call on the government of the Union for the requisite aid to that end. Whatever precautionary or penal measures the State may take when the insurrection is suppressed, the proposition would be a strange one to maintain, that while it lasted the county was not a part of the State, and hence was absolved from the duties, liabilities, and restrictions which would have been incumbent upon it if it had remained in its normal condition and relations. The power exercised in putting down the late rebellion is given expressly by the Constitution to Congress. That body made the laws and the President executed them. The granted power carried with it not only the right to use the requisite means, but it reached further and carried with it also the authority to guard against the renewal of the conflict, and to remedy the evils arising from it in so far as that could be effected by appropriate legislation. At no time were the rebellious States out of the pale of the Union. Their rights under the Constitution were suspended, but not destroyed. Their constitutional duties and obligations were unaffected and remained the same." [80 US 646, 650-651]
"Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people, or part of a people, who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship --on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror--must be the result.
--- Ulysses S. Grant (Personal Memoirs)
That portion very carefully ignores what came before it and after it in that portion of Grant's Memoirs. Here's a fuller excerpt showing the context, clearly showing Grant's Memoirs cannot be used to support the legality of secession:
[begin quote]
Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution.
Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship--on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror--must be the result.
In the case of the war between the States it would have been the exact truth if the South had said,--"We do not want to live with you Northern people any longer; we know our institution of slavery is obnoxious to you, and, as you are growing numerically stronger than we, it may at some time in the future be endangered. So long as you permitted us to control the government, and with the aid of a few friends at the North to enact laws constituting your section a guard against the escape of our property, we were willing to live with you. You have been submissive to our rule heretofore; but it looks now as if you did not intend to continue so, and we will remain in the Union no longer." Instead of this the seceding States cried lustily,--"Let us alone; you have no constitutional power to interfere with us." Newspapers and people at the North reiterated the cry. Individuals might ignore the constitution; but the Nation itself must not only obey it, but must enforce the strictest construction of that instrument; the construction put upon it by the Southerners themselves. The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.
The framers were wise in their generation and wanted to do the very best possible to secure their own liberty and independence, and that also of their descendants to the latest days. It is preposterous to suppose that the people of one generation can lay down the best and only rules of government for all who are to come after them, and under unforeseen contingencies. At the time of the framing of our constitution the only physical forces that had been subdued and made to serve man and do his labor, were the currents in the streams and in the air we breathe. Rude machinery, propelled by water power, had been invented; sails to propel ships upon the waters had been set to catch the passing breeze--but the application of stream to propel vessels against both wind and current, and machinery to do all manner of work had not been thought of. The instantaneous transmission of messages around the world by means of electricity would probably at that day have been attributed to witchcraft or a league with the Devil. Immaterial circumstances had changed as greatly as material ones. We could not and ought not to be rigidly bound by the rules laid down under circumstances so different for emergencies so utterly unanticipated. The fathers themselves would have been the first to declare that their prerogatives were not irrevocable. They would surely have resisted secession could they have lived to see the shape it assumed.
[end quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by clara_barton
After reading the Federalist Papers, the right of a peoples to leave a government peacefully or otherwise, was always maintained.
Reread it. There was never a right to secede under the Constitution in the Federalist Papers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clara_barton
How could it not be, as the colonies had just engaged in similar behavior. My take is, especially from a Jeffersonian view, the right of secession was inherent in the Constitution.
That's baloney. The states had just been through the Articles of Confederation, where secession would have been a right. They junked them in order to cement the bonds of the states to each other and to the union. Jefferson himself agreed.
Thanks for the replies; however, even in the expanded Grant Memoir quote, the right of revolution is supported. My question to blue, et. al., is revolution synonymous with secession?
Certainly, everyone knows Madison's half-dozen or so essays in the Federalist papers, and his later writings were pro-union. However, he was not the only author, and I believe Hamilton recognized the right to revolution.
If things were as clear cut as you'd like us to believe, why did New England contemplate rather vigorously secession from the late 1700's through 1814: at least, 3 times I believe: somewhat before the outlaw/fire-eater State of South Carolina.
What you'd like us to perceive was not what was historically happening at the time. A full appreciation of America as a Union was not fully developed. Coming off a 'secession' of sorts (The American Revolution) left the 'colonies' to sort it out; and, grow up. The loose compact theory (secession's philosophical base), Jefferson's baby, picked up by Calhoun, continued to ferment and grow through the ensuing decades with varying degrees of support from Congress, presidents, and the press (not the least of whom was Greeley).
I disagree Cash; things were not so nice and neat from 1780 through 1860. Conflicting, concurrent, and dangerous ideas were entertained, discussed, and acted upon. Madison's view of the Constitution was not Jefferson's view, was not J.Q. Adam's view, was not Cash's view. Brilliant men could be found on either side of the debate about the 'constitutionality' of secession.
Of course, Cash, you know all this, and more. I simply disagree that your quotes prove that secession was considered at the time unconstitutional: at least as many authors can be shown to support constitutional secession as against it: let's start with Jefferson.
My main question: is secession considered revolution? If secession is considered revolution can anyone find a source that says a people/state cannot overthrow an unjust government by revolution?
Thank you for your thoughtful posts on this thread.
Before I answer your question, may I please repeat that my main question has been about unilateral secession. Was it always considered a right to all the states and was it so obvious it was never disagreed upon or discussed?
We have enought evidence from both you and Cash that it was disagreed upon and that it was discussed, even argued.
But before we move on, may I have your definition of secession?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
The Southern view of all this is perhaps that the states that seceeded really did not want to do so, but rather were seeking relief from practices their representatives could not alleviate in the Congress. A vast number of Southerners did not want to withdraw from the Union their ancestors had given much blood to produce. [Nathan Bedford Forrest, for example, was in that group] Once the first punch was thrown, the fracas commenced and then, as we all know, got out of hand for four long years. If Congress had been worth it's salt (same problem essentially today), this war could have been avoided. Social justice perhaps might have taken a bit longer, though I contend that 145 years is long enough for that notion to mature.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Last edited by larry_cockerham; 12-09-2007 at 11:05 AM.
James Madison to Alexander Hamilton, July 20, 1788. The subject is Hamilton's news that the New York Ratification Convention was considering ratifying the Constitution on the condition that specified amendments be made within a specified period, failing which New York would reserve the right to withdraw.
"Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
"This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection."
Thanks for the replies; however, even in the expanded Grant Memoir quote, the right of revolution is supported. My question to blue, et. al., is revolution synonymous with secession?
Look at the Declaration of Independence. It provides the conditions under which a revolution is justified.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
Such a situation did not exist in 1860-1861.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clara_barton
Certainly, everyone knows Madison's half-dozen or so essays in the Federalist papers, and his later writings were pro-union. However, he was not the only author, and I believe Hamilton recognized the right to revolution.
You mischaracterize both Hamilton and Jay. The Federalist Papers showed the necessity of preserving the Union, the insufficiency of the Articles of Confederation to achieving that goal, and they show how the Constitution should be ratified because it would guarantee preservation of the Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clara_barton
If things were as clear cut as you'd like us to believe, why did New England contemplate rather vigorously secession from the late 1700's through 1814: at least, 3 times I believe: somewhat before the outlaw/fire-eater State of South Carolina.
You've been duped. There was no such contemplation by New England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clara_barton
What you'd like us to perceive was not what was historically happening at the time.
In fact, my view is historically accurate. Yours is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clara_barton
A full appreciation of America as a Union was not fully developed. Coming off a 'secession' of sorts (The American Revolution) left the 'colonies' to sort it out; and, grow up. The loose compact theory (secession's philosophical base), Jefferson's baby, picked up by Calhoun, continued to ferment and grow through the ensuing decades with varying degrees of support from Congress, presidents, and the press (not the least of whom was Greeley).
Jefferson said, "But if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist." [Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 4 Jun 1798] James Madison was one of Jefferson's best and closest friends. He rejected the use of Jefferson to support nullification or secession. No sitting President EVER supported the idea of there being a right to unilateral secession. No less than three sitting Presidents specifically proclaimed it was unconstitutional. Congress NEVER supported the idea of unilateral secession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clara_barton
I disagree Cash; things were not so nice and neat from 1780 through 1860. Conflicting, concurrent, and dangerous ideas were entertained, discussed, and acted upon. Madison's view of the Constitution was not Jefferson's view, was not J.Q. Adam's view, was not Cash's view. Brilliant men could be found on either side of the debate about the 'constitutionality' of secession.
I'm afraid you've been misled about Jefferson's view and John Quincy Adams' view. JQA said quite clearly secession was unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clara_barton
Of course, Cash, you know all this, and more. I simply disagree that your quotes prove that secession was considered at the time unconstitutional: at least as many authors can be shown to support constitutional secession as against it: let's start with Jefferson.
Show me any statement made during the ratification debates where someone said, "Don't worry, if the government under the Constitution turns out to be not what we say, we can just secede." You can't.
Patrick Henry complained that there was no way out of the Constitution. Nobody contradicted him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clara_barton
My main question: is secession considered revolution? If secession is considered revolution can anyone find a source that says a people/state cannot overthrow an unjust government by revolution?
Robert E. Lee considered it revolution, but there is no legal right to revolution. It is by definition an extralegal act. A revolution by definition is against the law of the country in which it occurs. Failed revolutionaries can expect prison and execution as just punishment for their crimes.
But before we move on, may I have your definition of secession?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Union,
My definition would be that secession is revolution: usually, unwarranted: as Cash said: extra-legal. So, of course, my view is that the South was turning upside down something that was in good order: the Union. I see no cause in their claims of injustice, etc. As Lincoln said, "the South wanted to perpetuate, strengthen, and expand their Slave Republic". To this end, they sacrificed everything.
However, if secession be truly revolution (and not just my idea); then, it seems the Founding Fathers did not want the Union sundered, but they understood a people's 'right' (?) to resort to revolution when all else failed becaused of unjust treatment. Attempting revolution, guarantees nothing to either party initially but bloodshed: to the victors ....
Are we to expect similar things in the ensuing years from the European Union? As that Union solidifies, will a country that feels itself threatened in some manner (unjustly treated), resort to similar 'secession' tactics?
Cash,
I defer to your years of reading, study, discourse, experience in this matter. So, I grant your statements to be true, and that I have been misled. Would you explain the decades of discussion and threats of secession, and what fostered that attitude? Orestes Brownson, some would think the greatest thinker of the 19th century, held for decades the 'right of secession', and published numerous articles supporting it. His roots were New England. It was not until the late 1850's that he reversed his opinion. Cash, what led to the continued debates and threats of the secession?
Thanks to all for a great discussion. This is fantastic. I'm going to have to print this one out, and study it more.
Last edited by clara_barton; 12-09-2007 at 01:58 PM.
A revolution is a successful rebellion. We've seen that highly placed individuals all maintain that there is a right to rebel against an oppressive government. We've seen also that none of them guarantee the success of the rebellion. There's usually a caveat in there about "having the power" or "if they're strong enough."
Secession may have been legally possible; however, the way it was done was clearly a rebellion -- one in which they weren't strong enough.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
whether legal or not. The trick is to come out the winner.
I doubt the Confederate founding fathers could ever justify the war, given that they were unable to protect, even at the beginning, much of their claimed territory.
So much is made of Chancellorsville and Fredricksburg, Confederate victories in Virginia, but little is mentioned that most of the counties in western Virginia were lost early in the war.
Much was made of ending slavery in the U.S. Territories. The Confederacy was unable to hold these areas after the first year of the war.
By secession, they made certain that slavery would end in the territories.
What ever right the Confederates thought they had, they were unable to enforce it in the territories. I've read that 75% of the slaves left their slaveholders in the first year of the war in Missouri. So much for the exercise of southern rights, even in a slave state.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
