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.
Good post. With your condemnation of Lincoln's unconstitutional acts you might want to mix in some of the confederacy's. In no way does this disturb your argument, but it would convince me that you know of the same activity south of the Potomac. Neely's "Southern Rights" makes a good read.
I interpret the Constitution as it is written.As such I hold that secession (sorry my Southern brethren )was unconstitutional.
What is it that is written in the Constitution that makes you think secession was unconstitutional?
Quote:
It was clearly under the Constitution illegal for it to be removed from Virgina.
I disagree. While the US Constitution requires that the Virginia legislature consent to the formation of West Virginia, it does not anticipate that the Virginia legislature would have nullified their own status as a state under the constitution, and therefore render themselves impotent to fulfill the requirements of the US Constitution. It was the state of Virginia which removed itself (in it's view) from the jurisdiction of the US Constitution. How can you expect either government to intercourse under the constitutional terms when one has declared itself removed?
Quote:
Secondly what Constitutional right did the President have under the Constitution to seize them?If Maryland had legally joined the Confederacy then I would have no issue with Lincoln arresting those who voted for secession. But arresting poeple because they disagree with your viewoint isn't democratic or allowable according to the Constitution.
Let me see if I can get this straight. According to your logic, arresting people because they disagree with your viewpoint is a no-no, but.... if secession were LEGAL, then arresting people who voted for it would NOT be a no-no? Hmmmm.
Quote:
As far as Lincoln interfering at the voting booths that's not hard to see at all with the soldiers present and considering his other deeds.
Troops were used to prevent southern style terrorism plots, not coerce voting. Tell me, how could the presence of soldiers coerce a voter to vote a certain way on a personal and secret ballot? Were Democrats somehow fearful that soldiers would know how they voted and shoot them in their beds or something? I'll admit, the presence of soldiers affords an easy opportunity for anti-Lincolners to make up tales about interference in the voting booths, but I just ask for an explanation of how this alleged coercion was accomplished.
Quote:
Then you're left with the North invading the South simply for the material benefit of the North.
I really didn't suppose this notion still held water with anyone.
Quote:
I cannot conceive of any argument that would not make the North look worse in my eyes than the South.
Why is it the study of history constantly morphed into a competition for morality and goodness? Who's keeping score?
Quote:
The North had no intention or goal to uphold the principles this country was founded on.No they only had self-interest in mind.Their self-interest guided their actions and not adherance to the Constitution.
I just find that statement to be a grossly overgeneralized, simplistic, and ahistorical summary. You may want to paint yourself a picture of unprincipled northerners or Unionists absorbed in self-interest, vs ultra Americanist Southerners selflessly pursuing the ideals of Madison, Washington, Jefferson, et.al.. But if the founding ideals that you refer to include freedom, liberty, opportunity for every man regardless of class, free speech, and representation for all, etc., then the government of the Confederacy was not necessarily staying the course.
Political and social power was ever concentrating itself into the hands of large planters; political dissention could be dangerous to your health in the South; and justice was too often handled without any regard for law. One cannot read the documents of those who were selling secession and not realize that self-interest was paramount. Won't you consider that on both sides of this event, different men at different times were motivated by their ideals and by their judgements of what was in the best interest of the welfare of their section, their nation, and of themselves.
I would like to attempt to reply to your post #29, if I may.
I too, agree with you that secession was unconstitutional, from what I read in the document.
However, West Virginia, and the creation of that state seems to give you the concern that its formation was NOT constitutional. May I direct you to the General Discussion part of this forum, where you will find on page one the thread titled, 'West Virginia.' Click on this thread at the beginning and read through the posts there and you will find a fine, reasoned argument from both sides of this question. Then I invite you to come back to this thread and comment on it and if it has given you pause on your concern or not.
You then voice your concerns over the arrest of members of the Maryland legislature. I invite you to view the following web site:
Here you will get the actual list of those men arrested and how many. Just scroll down through the site and click on that section to see.
I have also posted a reply (#35 on the Lee's High Hopes for Maryland thread) on the Secession and Politics forum, the thread can be found by clicking on page four of that forum and then clicking on the thread. Or you can find it here at this site.
This is a post I made in reply on the actual numbers of Marylanders arrested by Lincoln's Administration.
As to your concerns about habeus corpus, you must take issue with both sides, Lincoln and Davis, who both suspended the act during the war. It seems the Supreme Court has weighed in on this act, with the saying, "In times of war, the laws are silent." Lincoln was involved in a Civil War with hardly and type of system in place to enforce the law except through military courts and such. We must all realize that the Federal government of the time did not have a large bureaucracy like we have today. The army had to do most of the work and process of arrests and the like.
And of course you know that the act could be suspended under the Constitution. So why was it a violation of the Constitution to do so? Some will argue the President did not have the power, that the Congress did, but it was argued by Lincoln and supported by Congress he could do so and they backed him up on the issue.
As to him (Lincoln) shutting down newspapers for voicing political views, my own extensive research has shown this not to be the case. If anything, Lincoln overruled his generals when they shut down papers for political views. Out of the 1,500 newspapers and magazines in the North, I have yet to see any of the papers closed because Lincoln disagreed with their political views. If you find one, let me know, as it will be a first for me.
As for Lincoln interferring at the voting booths, you may be talking about New York State during the 1864 election. Do you understand that the state militia had been called out to discourage Republican voters at the polls and that Secretary of State Seward had the regular army called out in response to ensure no one was kept from the polls? If there is any other instance of polls being blocked or tampered with, please tell me so I can see for myself what the charges are.
As to the idea the North invaded the South for material gain, this one is entirely off the mark. During the war Northern production went up across the board. Corn, wheat, hogs, industrial production, etc., and all without the South contributing a thing. It was as though the South had never been missed in terms of resources and production. Check the census of the time if you doubt me.
And as far as I can tell Ashley, the only thing the South was really fighting for was the self-determination to keep slaves, expand slavery throughout the US and the Latin American countries, even into the Free States in the North. I dispair every time people get it wrong over who was trying to force people and disregard the Constitution and states rights.
I will admit the Southern leadership wanted a government to better suit their needs and to hell with the common people of their region or the people of the entire nation. It is my contention that the North did uphold the principles of this nation in the face of Southern domination and pressure to expand slavery at any cost.
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
Just a few examples of Northern newspapers having their right to free speech interfered with that you must have missed in your research.
Suppression of these editors began early in the war. For example, in August of 1861, theChristian Observer was closed by the U.S. marshal in Philadelphia. (62) At the same time, a federal grand jury in New York cited the Journal of Commerce, the Daily News, the Day-Book, the weekly Freeman's Journal, and the Brooklyn Eagle for the "frequent practice of encouraging the rebels now in arms against the Federal Government." This was followed by an order from the Postmaster General forbidding the mailing of these newspapers. (63)
Similarly, other newspapers were forbidden to circulate and sell. General Palmer temporarily prohibited the distribution of the Cincinnati Enquirer and Chicago Times within Kentucky. In New Haven, Connecticut the circulation of the New York Daily News was prohibited. General Burnside took similar action in excluding the New York World from Ohio. (64) This action was taken on the grounds of suspected disloyalty, and was intended as a partial measure for press control.
On February 23, 1863, the Davenport Daily Gazette in Iowa reported that some seventy-five convalescent soldiers from a near-by military hospital entered the office of the Keokuk, IowaConstitution, wrecked the presses and dumped the type out the window. (65) In the spring of 1863, the Crisis and the Marietta, Ohio Republican, a Democratic paper, suffered damages at the hands of a mob of soldiers. (66) The next year a number of other newspapers in the Midwest, including the Mahoning, Ohio Sentinel, Lancaster, Ohio Eagle, Dayton Empire, Fremont Messenger, and the Chester, Illinois Picket Guard experienced similar visitations. (67)
Along with suppression came the arrest of some editors. In October, 1861 the editor of the Marion, Ohio Mirror was arrested on charges of membership in a secret anti-war organization. (68) In Illinois, a number of men were taken into custody including the editors of the Paris Democratic Standard, M. Mehaffey and F. Odell. These men were imprisoned without trial in Fort Lafayette, Fort Delaware or the Old Capital Prison in Washington, D.C. (69) In other Midwestern states those arrested, usually on charges of interfering with enlistment or similar activities, included Dennis Mahoney, editor of the Dubuque Herald, and Dana Sheward, editor of the Fairfield Constitution and Union. (70) In Philadelphia the Evening Journal was suppressed by military order in January, 1863, and Albert D. Boileau, its editor, confined to Fort McHenry for a few days until he wrote an apology and promised to reform. (71)
The following interference of free speech was directly ordered by Lincoln himself.Whereas, there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published this morning, in the New York World and the New York Journal of Commerce, . . . a false and spurious proclamation purported to be signed by the President . . . which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and to the rebels now at war against the Government and their aiders and abettors, you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom. (79)
General Dix executed the order and took newspaper managers into custody. Dix seized the newspaper offices and held them under military guard for three days.
Neil I will add this.I have read some credible evidence I believe where Lincoln did in fact correct some generals he thought had went to far in suppressing free speech.To be fair I felt compelled to add that information.
Regards,
Ashley
Cedarstripper, Lincoln's position was that VA could NOT remove itself from the Union, and that they indeed did not.
So which was it?
Was VA still a part of the Union, or not?
If it was, then the creation of WV was unconsitutional, and the federal government's role in that creation was as well.
Hal
----------------------
Sorry, Hal, but that position is still wrong.
Whether secession is legal or illegal is inconsequential to the legality of West Virginia's creation.
If secession were legal and Virginia was out of the Union, then the Constitutional restriction doesn't apply and West Virginia may be added to the Union as conquered territory.
If secession is illegal, then the Richmond legislature, by the Constitution, is no longer qualified to hold office. The legislature recognized by the President and by the Congress as being the legitimate government of Virginia gave its consent to the partition of Virginia and the creation of West Virginia in accordance with the Constitution. The US Congress gave its consent, and the President signed the act admitting West Virginia as a state into the Union.
The admission of West Virginia was completely legal.
Evening Neil,
The double standard I'm referring to how many of the Northern view use the Constitution to legitimize coercion .I interpret the Constitution as it is written.As such I hold that secession (sorry my Southern brethren )was unconstitutional.So I understand that Northern position.
And so you must then agree there was no illegitimate coercion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
However,take West Virginia.It was clearly under the Constitution illegal for it to be removed from Virgina.So for the North to have approved of it then or support it now directly contradicts the idea that the Constitution factored into this war.
Absolutely wrong. The Constitution allows the partition of a state if the legislature of that state gives its consent. The loyal legislature of the State of Virginia, recognized by the Congress and by the President as the legitimate government of the State of Virginia, gave its consent to the partition of the state and the creation of West Virginia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Then take the many acts of Lincoln.While I have no doubt that some poeple have exagerrated his acts there can be little doubt that he committed a plethora of unconstitutional acts.
In fact, he did not commit a plethora of unconstitutional acts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
We all know he imprisoned Maryland legislators.I have a problem with this on two counts.First we are a democracy and not communist Russia and you're supposed to not have the government interfere with the democratic process. Secondly what Constitutional right did the President have under the Constitution to seize them?If Maryland had legally joined the Confederacy then I would have no issue with Lincoln arresting those who voted for secession.But arresting poeple because they disagree with your viewoint isn't democratic or allowable according to the Constitution.
There was suspicion of a plot to stage an insurrection in Maryland, culminating in Maryland becoming a part of an armed rebellion against the United States. The Executive always has the right to stop plots to foment rebellion by arresting the suspected plotters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
The suspension of habeus corpus is also not reminiscient of a democratic society and it is actually incompatible with it.And it happened time and time again.
The Constitution allows the US Government to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in times of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it. The President is the judge of when it is required. Thus the President is allowed to suspend the privilege of the writ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
And what about Lincoln shutting down Northern newspapers.I don't believe he closed down 300 as some Southerners have claimed ,but I believe he did do it.Again how can anyone using the Constitution to support coercion not condemn this.
Newspapers were suppressed when they did harm to the public good. In some cases the military officers went too far and Lincoln had them lift the suppression. But Lincoln balanced the freedom of the press against the harm done to the nation by various editors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I really don't understand.As far as Lincoln interfering at the voting booths that's not hard to see at all with the soldiers present and considering his other deeds.
The following interference of free speech was directly ordered by Lincoln himself.Whereas, there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and published this morning, in the New York World and the New York Journal of Commerce, . . . a false and spurious proclamation purported to be signed by the President . . . which publication is of a treasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States and to the rebels now at war against the Government and their aiders and abettors, you are therefore hereby commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and all such persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood of said publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in close custody until they can be brought to trial before a military commission for their offense. You will also take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, and hold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publication therefrom. (79)
General Dix executed the order and took newspaper managers into custody. Dix seized the newspaper offices and held them under military guard for three days.
Regards,
Ashley
If you bother to familiarize yourself with the circumstances surrounding this suppression you'll see that it was due to criminal activity. The newspapers published a forged proclamation designed to artificially depress the gold prices. Once the guilty party was apprehended the suspension was lifted.
By the way, you really should identify the source you copied and pasted this from.
I discuss newspaper suppressions in my post #60 on the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments Thread. That post is reproduced here below:
Regarding newspapers during the Civil War, the best source I have been able to find is James G. Randall's work on the subject. He published two works that I have. The first was an article in the American Historical Review Vol XXIII, No. 2, January, 1918, pp. 303-323, titled, "The Newspaper Problem in its Bearing Upon Military Secrecy During the Civil War." The second is his book, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, Revised Edition, 1964.
Randall doesn't get into numbers of newspapers, but rather he says,
"A striking fact concerning the subject of journalistic activity during the Civil War was the lack of any real censorship." [Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, p. 481]
He also says, "When one contemplates the full result of a loose policy toward newspapers during war, the case for some form of news control becomes a convincing one. The American Civil War presents a significant field for study in this connection, for the double reason that a period of remarkably keen journalistic enterprise coincided with a time of laxity in the matter of press control. Acting under no effective governmental restraint, the newspapers of the North, though in many ways deserving of admiration, undoubtedly did the national cause serious injury by continually revealing military information, undermining confidence in the management of public affairs, and giving undue publicity to the virtues of ambitious generals and the sensational features of the war." ["The Newspaper Problem," AHR, p. 303]
Randall details several instances where Northern newspapers revealed highly sensitive military information regarding movements of troops, objectives, locations of guns, types of defenses, size of troop formations, etc. Indeed, Robert E. Lee found the Northern newspapers to be lucrative sources of valuable information he could use militarily.
But revealing sensitive information was not the only problem with newspapers. Randall tells us, "In the North, however, during the Civil War, there were many powerful papers whose malignant attitude toward the administration amounted to disloyalty and active sympathy with the enemy. The utterances of such papers as the New York World and Daily News, the Baltimore Exchange, the South, the Maryland Daily News, the Columbus (Ohio) Crisis, and the Chicago Times were so vicious that suppression or the arrest of thei reditors seemed but mild forms of punishment. The publicity which these papers gave to military information was as pernicious as in the case of the 'loyal' or 'administration' press, and there was the added vice of deliberate purpose to undermine the government's plans. In such sheets the whole conflict was denounced as a 'Black Republican' war, governmental measures were characterized as tyrannous attempts to overthrow civil liberty in the North, the President was referred to as an imbecile or despot, and the secessionists were applauded. While continually denouncing the attacks on the 'freedom of the press,' their unrestrained abuse was itself the best evidence that such freedom had been allowed to preceed to the point of shameless license." ["The Newspaper Problem," AHR, p. 316]
Randall extracts some writings from the Chicago Times, the Baltimore Exchange, and the Indianapolis Sentinel, and then comments, "One can easily imagine the effect of such language upon that public morale which is so essential for the support of armies in the field; and yet the above extracts are not examples of the worst utterances that may be found in the newspapers of the time, but rather of the daily tone of many powerful journals. They are representative of the sort of injurious journalism which the administration regularly tolerated, while instances of governmental repression directed against newspapers were but the exception." [Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, p. 489]
Newspapers were suppressed for brief times and a few editors were briefly jailed. For example, Randall tells us of the case of Edmund J. Ellis, editor of the Boone County Standard, Columbia, Missouri, who was charged with "the publication of information for the benefit of the enemy and encouraging resistance to the Government and laws of the United States." He was found guilty and banished from Missouri. [Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, p. 491]
Randall also tells us, "When the activities of a newspaper produced too grave a menace, it sometimes happened that the newspaper itself was 'suppressed,' which usually meant that by military action its publication was temporarily suspended. ... Among the newspapers subjected for a time to military 'suppression' were the Chicago Times, the New York World, the New York Journal of Commerce, the Dayton (Ohio) Empire, the Louisville (KY) Courier, New Orleans Crescent, the South of Baltimore, the Maryland News Sheet of Baltimore, the Baltimore Gazette, the Daily Baltimore Republican, the Baltimore Bulletin, the Philadelphia Evening Journal, the New Orleans Advocate, the New Orleans Courier, the Baltimore Transcript, the Thibodaux (LA) Sentinel, the Cambridge (MD) Democrat, the Wheeling Register, the Memphis News, the Baltimore Loyalist, and the Louisville True Presbyterian." [Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, pp. 492-493] In a footnote, Randall says "For the suppression of newspapers the principal source is the Official Records. The general index and the volume indexes cite the papers on which the information is to be found." [p. 493, fn 24]
Regarding the overall situation, Randall tells us, "A study of the various instances of governmental repression in the case of newspapers will reveal not so much that the penalties were excessive in view of the offense committed as that the means were ill adapted to the end desired. Popular pressure, rather than governmental repression was, after all, the most effective method by which the journals could be kept within bounds. ... Viewing the whole period of the war, and taking account of all parts of the country, it appears that the actual governmental interference with the freedom of the press was comparatively slight, and that voluntary restraint or popular pressure had far greater effect in keeping improper material out of newspapers than official repression. ... There was during the war no real suppression of opinion." ["Newspaper Problems," AHR, pp. 322-323]
"It would be a mistake, however, to dwell upon the various instances of suppression without balancing them against the far greater number of instances in which the temptation to drastic action was resisted. Despite particular occasions of harsh treatment, the prevailing policy was one of tolerance and leniency. As we have already observed, no true newspaper censorship existed during the war." [Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, pp. 507-508]
Lincoln's policy, of course, was clear to see:
"Under your recent order, which I have approved, you will only arrest individuals, and suppress assemblies, or newspapers, when they may be working palpable injury to the Military in your charge; and, in no other case will you interfere with the expression of opinion in any form, or allow it to be interfered with violently by others. In this, you have a discretion to exercise with great caution, calmness, and forbearance." [Abraham Lincoln to John M. Schofield, 1 Oct 1863, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 6, p. 492]
Cedarstripper, Lincoln's position was that VA could NOT remove itself from the Union, and that they indeed did not.
So which was it?
Was VA still a part of the Union, or not?
If it was, then the creation of WV was unconsitutional, and the federal government's role in that creation was as well.
Hal
I don't think it is I who is trying to have my cake and eat it too. The Virginia legislature was in rebellion and by their actions not operating under the umbrella of the US Constitution. It is not reasonable to expect the terms of the US Constitution to be carried out with the participation of a non-participant engaged in an illegal rebellion, and I submit that the constitutional articles are not written with a required interaction of a revolting State legislature in mind.
Cash has answered this with far more efficiency than I can muster. It was correct for Lincoln and Congress to regard the loyal legislature as the legitimate VA government and honor their consent for the formation of West Virginia and its constitutional admittance into the Union.
That is how it should have played from the Union's stance that Virginia's secession was not legal. Is there something inconsistent with that view?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
