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.
The formality of the letter of the law tends to lose ground when gators are gnawing at your backside. Still, it's good to keep an eye on it and avoid going overboard, which Lincoln did (avoided going overboard).
If he'd have declared Martial Law, he'd have been within his rights and any constitutional discrepancies could have been ignored with far more impunity than was the case.
We see similar reactions today. The Feds kind of stretch the rules a bit here and there, but are called to task and forced to back off. They'll keep stretching and someone will be there to resist. Kind of reminds us that we still haven't escaped from our origins, doesn't it?
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
Yes, we truly have not escaped from our origins. And a bit of pre-Civil War thought on the notion of Lincoln violating the Constitution.
"...(a) strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. ...(Rather) laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. For to lose our country by scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; THUS ABSURDLY SACRIFICING THE END TO THE MEANS."
Thomas Jefferson.
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
Please don't ever feel that there is a need to apologize for delayed responses. My curiosity and musings are of little consequence in comparison to health and personal issues. Whatever the reasons, my only wish is for your speedy recovery...we are a battered and bruised lot these days, are we not?!
I found Michael Dorf's article compelling, well written, and thought provoking...thank you for providing this link. From Mr. Dorf's article, I've summarized Lincoln's reasons against secession from his First Inaugural Address: 1. "fundamental law" in every national government rejects the idea of it's own termination. 2. The Union was a mere voluntary association - Lincoln claimed that even if it were, ordinary contract law would bar unilateral secession (Lincoln noted that while one party can breach a contract, the consent of all parties is required to rescind a contract). 3. The Union was older than the Constitution 4. LIncoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession (The Articles of Confederation purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create a " more perfect Union," the Constitution strengthened the already undissoluble bond between the States). And finally, there is the inference that "whatever the status of the States when they entered the Union, they perpetually gave up important attributes of sovereignty in doing so."
Following the Declaration of Independence, each colony established by law the legitimacy of its own sovereignty as a State. Each one drew up, voted upon, and then ratified its own State Constitution, which declared and defined its sovereignty as a State. The States then joined together formally into a Confederation of States, but only for the purposes of negotiating treaties, waging war, and regulating foreign commerce. My understanding is that for those specific purposes the thirteen states adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781, creating the United States of America. The Articles of Confederation spelled out clearly where the real power lay. Article II said, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” The Article also prohibited the secession of any member state (“the union shall be perpetual,” Article XIII) unless all of the states agreed to dissolve the Articles.
Six years later, the Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia, supposedly to overhaul the Articles. Its purpose was to retain the sovereignty of the States and to delegate to the United States government a few more powers than the Articles had granted it. The question was raised in the convention that, "Should there be a “perpetual union” clause in the Constitution? The delegates voted it down, and the States were left free to secede under the Constitution.
Even John Quincy Adams said in an 1839 speech about secession that in “dissolving that which can no longer bind, we would have to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.” Also, Alexander Hamilton said, “to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised.” These men, and many others, understood that there was a right of secession, and that the federal government would have no right to force anybody to remain in the Union.
I understand that you see the Confederates as traitors to their nation, but at the time of the Civil War the people were citizens of individual states that were members of the United States, so that when a state seceded, the citizens of that state were no longer affiliated with the national government. The Constitution did not create an all-powerful national democracy, but instead a Confederation of sovereign states. The existence of the Electoral College, the Bill of Rights, and the United States Senate clearly shows this and I realize that I keep going back to The Ten Amendment, but it only serves to reinforce my point. And if states do not have the right to secede, do they have any rights at all?
I'm curious about the trial that was never held for Jefferson Davis because the chief justice of the Supreme Court informed President Andrew Johnson that if Davis were placed on trial for treason, then the United States would lose the case because nothing in the Constitution forbid secession. How then can secession be considered treason?
Mr. Dorf raises the issue of secession in my own country which I consider an excellent example of contemporary secession. Our Supreme Court has been put in a very intense Constitutional position, but it has publicly recognized Quebec secession as a major and current threat to Canadian Constitutionalism.
Neil, I understand that you earnestly believe in the extreme measures that President Lincoln took in order to put down what he perceived to be an illegal rebellion/insurrection...it was war so the end justified the means. But by blatantly ignoring The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, was Lincoln not in effect recognizing that the State's did indeed have a rite of passage?
An excellent post and I wish to take time to answer it completely. But I wish to leave you with the following thoughts.
John Quincy Adams should be viewed in more depth before you assume that he was in any way sympathetic to the idea of secession. He wasn't.
Alexander Hamilton? Odd that you would use him as a support for the idea of secession. Especially with his views on the Whiskey Rebellion and later comments.
But here is a quote for you, by a man who helped write the Declaration of Independence and those Virginia Resolutions that are so often taken out of context to support secession.
"When any one State in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compel obedience."
Thomas Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVII.
This from the man that most with southern leanings on this board will throw the quote at you that the man never made in the first place, 'the government that governs least, governs best' but they won't go the extra mile and tell you his previous quote!
And another thought from Lincoln.
"It forces us to ask: Is there, in all republics, this inherent, fatal weakness? Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?"
Back with you soon,
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
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall (a Virginian, ironically), speaking for the Supreme Court, held that that Court was the ultimate arbiter as to what the Constitution meant. It strikes me that both sides tacitly admitted that secession was a nonjusticiable political question rather than a strictly constitutional one. Neither South Carolina nor any other seceding state went to court to seek a ruling, and Lincoln (understandably in the view of this sympathetic Northerner) presumably concluded, if he ever thought about it, that seeking a court order was hardly a practical response to an armed rebellion.
If anyone from the South considered seeking a favorable court decision, the prospects were grim. I took a look at the Supreme Court lineup as of early 1861. In my humble opinion, there would not have been more than two votes, at most, for the proposition that secession was constitutional. Notwithstanding the 7-2 Dredd Scott decision (1857), only one Justice (from Georgia) resigned and joined the Confederacy in 1861. Two other Southerners (Georgia and Tennessee) on the Court as of 1861 remained on the Court and were reportedly strong Unionists. Chief Justice Taney was a border-stater (Maryland) but a Jacksonian who also remained on the Court. The remainder were Northerners.
After the war, of course, everyone realized that the issue had been decided as a practical matter. In Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court confirmed this reality, holding that
"[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."
Does anyone know the underlying evidence supporting the assertion that, after the War "the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Salmon Portland Chase, informed President Andrew Johnson that if [Jefferson] Davis were placed on trial for treason the United States would lose the case because nothing in the Constitution forbids secession"? In view of Texas v. White, I find this proposition extremely odd. Texas v. White was decided 5-3, with the majority (including Chief Justice Chase, who wrote the opinion) holding that the States and the Union were indestructable. However, the three dissenters did not argue that States had a right to secede. They merely took the position that the factual and political reality (given Reconstruction) was that Texas was not, as of 1866 (when the suit was filed), a "State". Thus, no Supreme Court justice was then prepared to indorse the proposition that secession was constitutional.
I recognize that examining how the Supreme Court would have ruled in 1861 (or after the War) does not answer the theoretical question, which is indeed fascinating. But under our system, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.
It seems Lincoln himself would have agreed with you.
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is the most valuable, a most sacred right-aright which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is the right confined to cases in which the whole people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Abraham Lincoln 1-12-1848
He later of course would contradict himself as president of the United States.
“No state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union. Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.” Abe Lincoln
He changed his mind as the political scene dictated it be done.
Lincoln did not change his mind on the subject of revolution, it just seems those uncomfortable with the idea that the South executed its natural right to revolution need to take some form of comfort in the unproven, illegal and worn out excuse of the theory of secession.
As the man said, "Secession is an issue which can only be tried by war and decided by victory."
Lincoln, message to Congress, 1864.
And last, but not least, "Those who fairly carry an election can fairly suppress a rebellion."
Try not to take the man out of context and read all of what he has said in the context of his time and place and it all becomes less confusing.
In reply to your post of 02-19-05, 03:15 PM, I would first like to say, thank you for waiting!
I find it very encouraging that you viewed Mr. Dorf's article in such detail and pretty much agree with your conclusions.
However, then the bumps start coming pretty fast. In your fourth paragraph, you make the statement, "Should there be a 'perpetual union' clause in the Constitution? The delegates voted it down, and the States were left free to secede under the Constitution." HUH? Not the way I read things, Dawna.
Answer me this, Dawna. Is there a process clearly listed in the US Constitution that gives the steps needed to admit a new State to the Union? Of course there is. Now, the reverse question, is there a process clearly listed in the US Constitution that permits a State to leave the Union? If it was important enough to list the procedural steps to admit a new State into the Union, then why are there no clear steps on such an important issue on a State leaving the Union? Were the founders such idiots, such fools to give one way in, list all the steps and procedures, and then leave such a serious issue to vague interpretation?
No, they were not. They simply did not contemplate the destruction of their nation by such means, and they had a right to feel that way, as no nation prior to the formation of the United States and the drafting of the Constitution had in no way provided for its own self-destruction.
And why, Dawna, if somewhere, the States were supreme and had the right over the Federal government to dictate they could leave or that they were superior to the central government in some way, does Article VI of the Constitution state: "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land..."
And why were the following words included: "..and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
And this: "The Senators and Representatives, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."
The founders fully intended the State official, along with federal ones, to support the Constitution, not to nullify it or declare it null and void upon the illegal act of secession.
In the next paragraph you state: "Even John Quincy Adams said in a 1839 speech about secession that in 'dissolving that which can no longer bind, we would have to leave the seperated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center."
In checking my notes I have found that this is a DiLorenzo claim from his book The Real Lincoln. It refers to John Quincy Adams 1839 Discourse, "The Jubilee of the Constitution." On page 68 of that same Discourse, Adams writes, "In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a state to nullify an act of Congress, is too absurd for argument, and too odious for discussion...The right of a state to secede from the union is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence."
The speech of The Jubilee of the Constitution speech by Adams can be found at the following link:
What Adams meant was exactly what Lincoln has said and been screwed up by those who read what they want to read. Adams was reffering to the right of revolution, not as a legal right, but a natural, extra-legal right. Again, taking Adam's out of context, as DiLorenzo does with others through out his entire book, makes for bad history and worse understanding.
You also state that Alexander Hamilton understood there was a right of secession. I feel you would have a very hard time proving Hamilton came out in support of States Rights, especially with his active participation in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion with the objective of firmly establishing control of the federal government over unlawful elements in society at the time.
I cannot see the argument that 'now you're in the union, now you're not!' Like I have said many times before Dawna, let's both declare that we have seceded from our town or city and that we no longer have the legal obligation to pay for power, sewage, garbage pick-up, gas, water, city taxes or cable. Is there any chance up there in Canada they WON'T come for you based on your argument you are no longer part of the State? I know down here in Ohio it wouldn't take long for me to have a conversation with the city about my taxes and such. Why would States think there would be anything less when they try this supposed 'magic' in leaving the Union? EVERYONE knew that peaceable secession was an utter impossibility and anyone who says otherwise is on too much medication.
And again Dawna, I do not understand your reference that Lincoln was somehow violating the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and no, Lincoln at no time recognized the States had some right of passage to 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
As always, thank you for your response. I'm not certain why you are puzzled regarding my statement that , "The delegates voted it down, and the States were left free to secede under the Constitution." If there was no "perpetual union clause" in the Constitution and the States have the right to join the Union, then would they not have the same right to leave the Union?
"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 of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Yes, there is a process listed int he U.S. Constitution that gives the steps needed to admit a new state to the Union. I would really be interested to know what 'steps' were taken to create the state of West Virginia. And why was the right of secession taught at West Point before the War?
From President Lincoln's 1861 inaugural address: No American state had the right to secede given that "no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination." This sounds incredibly abstract to me Neil and somewhat meaningless, as does a "more perfect union."
If the Tenth Amendment does not back up secession, then I would be interested to know what your interpretation of this Amendment to be. And my other point regarding the Tenth Amendment was that Lincoln completely ignored it, while creating a great deal of noise elsewhere. William Rawle, a scholar and friend of George Washington, observed in 1825 that "to deny the right of state secession "would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."
As an aside, I understand that you have the least regard for Thomas DiLorenzo, but I came across this interview with him and thought you might be interested in reading it, if you haven't already:
"Mises.org: Your book The Real Lincoln came out, it was a huge seller, and then this mad controversy broke loose.
DiLorenzo: The controversy began even before the book came out. Illana Mercer of WorldNet Daily wrote a column about the book, praising it to the skies. That pleased me very much. But then the critics started blasting away, without ever having seen the book. One even recommended that people not read my book. They were extremely crude, denouncing Illana’s “comprehensive ignorance.” These Lincoln people were outraged that there was a book out that was less-than hagiographic toward the great man.
Once the book appeared, the critics became ever more vehement. But instead of addressing my argument and evidence, they seized on a couple of errors in the book that were carried over from errors in secondary sources. Both of these are changed in the new printing. These errors shouldn’t have been there but they were not by any means essential to the thesis.
Mises.org: One of the misquotations concerns Lincoln’s view of racial equality.
DiLorenzo: Yes, I ran across it among the 60 or so Lincoln books in my office, and it sounded quintessentially Lincolnian. Lincoln is on record opposing equality for blacks, and was a lifetime proponent recolonizing slaves back to Africa. This is beyond dispute, even if the Lincoln partisans don’t like to talk about it.
In the passage I quoted, he was making fun of the idea of racial equality. It turned out that the context of this quote, among so many making essentially the same point, had Lincoln attributing the view to someone else.
The misattribution made no difference to the thesis, but these critics began writing 20-page essays flaming me for this, suggesting I had done this deliberately. It is all disingenuous because Lincoln is on record time after time rejecting the idea of racial equality. But whenever anyone brings this up, the Lincoln partisans go to the extreme to smear the bearer of bad news. One critic called me both a Marxist and a libertarian, and probably a member of the White Citizens Council.
Meanwhile, my missteps pale in comparison with the inaccuracies that my critics have introduced. David Quackenbush, for example, claims that there is only one quote from Lincoln in my entire book. This is a ridiculous assertion that is easy to disprove in about 15 seconds of flipping through my book.
Mises.org: And yet, as you say, none of this touches on your central thesis."
I suppose that I will never understand Neil, why, instead of retaking Fort Sumter, President Lincoln chose to call up 75,000 militia...I guess it's that making noise thing.
The reason I am puzzled regarding your statement is the last part of it where it says, "...and the States were left free to secede under the Constitution." Not the part where you state that the delegates voted down the perpetual union clause. Nowhere do I get the impression in the debate over the Constitution and its eventual ratification that somewhere in the document was a supposed legal right to secede was ever included.
Now, did folks prior to the Civil War think there was a natural right of revolution? Yes, I think that was undeniable and understood by all, but a legal one? No way, no how. Even when you look at the examples of the Hartford Convention and earlier, you will find anyone contemplating secession did so with the idea that it would take force of arms to accomplish and that they were discouraged against the idea because it did NOT have what was considered a legal basis.
I seem to get the idea you are also ignoring the statement, "In order to form a more perfect Union..." that secession would destroy this ideal. I submit to you that even though the "perpetual union clause" was voted down, the delegates did not mean by that act they were providing some 'back door' out of the union by means of secession. In fact, the very purpose of the Constitution was to strengthen and preserve the Union. Remember our friend, Alexander Hamilton from above? In Federalist#84, he wrote: "The great bulk of the citizens of America are with reason convinced, that Union is the basis of their political happiness. Men of sense of all parties now, with few exceptions, agree that it cannot be preserved under the present system (Articles of Confederation), nor without radical alterations."
If you think there was some doubt of this or that any of those in attendance at the Constitutional convention, then why the following minority report of the Pennsylvania ratification assembly (December 1787):
"In short, consolidation pervades the whole constitution. It begins with an annunciation that such was the intention. The main pillars of the fabric correspond with it, and the condluding paragraph is a confirmation of it. The preamble begins with the words, "We the people of the United States," which is the style of a compact between individuals entering into a state of society, AND NOT THAT OF A CONFEDERATION OF STATES."
I even include a statement from a Southern newspaper editor on the idea of the Hartford Convention of 1814 on the idea that secession was advocated: "...no state or set of states has a right to withdraw itself from the Union of its own accord...[A]ny attempt to dissolve the Union...is Treason." So where was this agreed upon idea that secession was 'left free to secede under the Constitution?'
What does the Tenth Amendment mean to me? What is my own personal interpretation of it? Simply that the rights and powers of the people apart from their participation from in either state or national government were recognized in the wording of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
NINTH: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.
TENTH: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Note that the phrases are by the People and to the people, not by the People OF THE STATES or to the people OF THE STATES. These amendments were meant to preserve powers to the people, not create news ones for the States to use, such as the creation of a new power, that of secession by a State. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers to the states, it does not create them. States do not have Constitutional authority to secede because the States are not parties to the Constitution, only the people are. The Constitution was created by we the people not we the states.
The part of the Declaration of Independence you state again lists the right to abolish or alter the government over them by the ballot box or by the natural right of revolution, not a hidden, hoped-for, mystical, magical theory of secession.
As to the matter of the State of West Virginia being formed from another state, here I am willing to give some ground, but not much. Even members of Congress and the Republican Party thought this was wrong per the Constitution, and so did Lincoln, but he went along with the fiction that the western section of Virginia represented the true government of the State, even though this was obviously not true. But again, how can one who supports secession gripe about a part of a state that wants nothing to do with secession and secedes from them? How can a thief protest when he is stolen from?
I also fail to understand why you think Lincoln is being abstract when he states a government does not provide for its own self destruction. I am sure in the life time of a nation or a person do we ever seriously consider suicide as a practical means of solving our problems.
As for your suggestion that somehow William Rawle had ANYTHING to do with providing a legal means of secession under the Constitution, I invite you to scroll down and find the thread under this section of the board entitled 'William Rawles view on Secession.' Then go to page 1 and find the post 03-25-2004, 12:44 AM by cash. Then go to page 2 to the post 03-31-2004, 04:38 PM by cash. Here you will find that the impact of the teachings of Rawle at West Point are small and few and far between. In other words, his book was used for 'about' 1 year and there is much doubt that the class being taught from his book even reached the section on secession theory he discusses in his book. It is also shown that many of the Confederate leadership never studied him except maybe Gen. Albert S. Johnson. Not Davis, not Lee, so again, his impact means what?
You will also see that Rawles book was discontinued as soon as Joseph Story's book on the Constitution became available and his book does not condone secession. There is a link there to a web site that has Rawles book printed. Read what he has to say about the implications of secession and his views on it.
As for you listing part of a conversation between DiLorenzo and the Ludwig vo Mises Institute, this is a libertarian author who is also a senior faculty member of the same Institute, talking with a libertarian organization who supports DiLorenzo's views and vise versa. You are not getting a 'fair and balanced' view from either one. Again, to take DiLorenzo seriously, one must get to know him, really know him. He might make a good economics professor, but he makes a lousy historian. And I beg to differ with 'Mises.org,' but many historians of note have touched upon DiLorenzo's 'central thesis' and found it wanting as serious history.
And last, but by no mean least, Dawna, please explain to me why the Confederate government called up 100,000 troops LONG before Lincoln called up his 75,000 volunteers? And please, if you could, how many acts of war had been committed by the Southern States after the election of 1860 and BEFORE Lincoln ever got to the White House in Washington? How much noise did the South make before Lincoln even reacted to the sound?
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
