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.
Cash,
That is cute. But that definition would not count as it is a modern interpretation created because of the war between the states. Or in spite of it. Find a pre-US definition and see what it says.
------------
Tommy,
Here is the Fifth Posting of the Law of the Land:
"But Georgia cannot be viewed as a single, unconnected, sovereign power, on whose legislature no other restrictions are imposed than may be found in its own constitution. She is a part of a large empire; she is a member of the American union; and that union has a constitution the supremacy of which all acknowledge, and which imposes limits to the legislatures of the several states, which none claim a right to pass." [Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87, 136]
"In discusing this question, the counsel for the state of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the constitution, to consider that instrument, not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion. **It would be difficult to sustain this proposition.** The convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere
proposal, without obligations, or pretenses to it. It was reported to the then existing congress of the United States, with a request that it might 'be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification.' this mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by congress, and by the state legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act savely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several states--and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments.
"From these conventions, the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people. . . . **The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties.**" [McCullough v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 402-404]
"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. . .. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared, that in the exercise of all the powers given for these objects, it is supreme. . . . The constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void. These States are constituent parts of the United States. They are members of one great
empire." [Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 413-414]
"When these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their Congress of Ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, the whole character in which the States appear, underwent a change." [Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 187]
Get ready to repost it for a sixth time. As I have said before:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1, King Jame Version.
It has been shown by yourself and others that secession was not a right or proven theory nor was it considered a part of the Constititution. It has even been shown that a large part of the South, prior to 1860, thought it nothing more than treason to suggest the idea of secession.
I must also admit that I grow weary of seeing Lincoln misquoted and twisted and taken out of context over his words stating that revolution, not secession, was a right to the people, a natural right, not a lawful one.
Dawna, there can be no confusion, no puzzelment over Lincoln and revolution, either in 1848 or in 1861, when you read his entire text. I can provide links to web sites that show both if you need them. And no, Lincoln never acknowledged the state's right to secede, in 1848 or in 1861.
You bring up West Virginia, but could you please reply on Cash's comments concerning your quote about Howard Perkin's survey on 'about 1,000 Northern newspapers' NOT being in favor of secession? Where did you get the information on that? What book or site, if I may ask?
Cash, I apologize for letting you take the brunt of the assualt, but I truly admire the depth of your research and always learn something new when you are involved in the discussion.
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
Cash, I apologize for letting you take the brunt of the assualt, but I truly admire the depth of your research and always learn something new when you are involved in the discussion.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Neal,
I have no problem with giving you a breather.
I kind of see it as a Union version of 2nd Bull Run. There I am, like Jackson, absorbing the assault, and at just the right moment, like Longstreet, you deliver the devastating counterattack to the flank that drives the enemy from the field.
I see where Dawna has mentioned Northern Editorials on Secession. I assume that this is a book of some sort? And I also see that you mentioned that a majority of the Northern editorials on secession were against secession. Any idea on how many Northern newspapers were suppressed by Lincoln and the federal government? I have seen as high a figure as 300, but no one can provide an accurate, documented count.
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
I see where Dawna has mentioned Northern Editorials on Secession. I assume that this is a book of some sort?
-------------------
Yes. It is a 2-volume work edited by Howard Perkins, copyright 1964. It reproduces 495 editorials culled from a representative sample of 195 newspapers out of 800 consulted.
In the introduction, Dr. Perkins writes, "The editorials in these volumes express the sentiments of northern editors during what were perhaps the most crucial ten months since the winning of American independence. In that brief time, events moved rapidly. September, 1860, opened the active phase of the presidential campaign, and editors wrote of secession and the preservation of the Union and perhaps of coercion, just as they had in 1852 and 1856, but nobody in the North bought a gun or refused a southern order for goods. By the following June all was different. From the confusion of counsel emerged the resolution to impose the northern will by force of arms. The rapidity of the transition left some editors dismayed, others prayerful, still others buoyant, but none speechless. As one of them remarked, 'We have lived a century in six months.' June closed with a rising clamor for 'traitors' blood.' Within three weeks the northern press coerced the administration into the Battle at Bull Run." [Howard C. Perkins, _Northern Editorials on Secession,_ Vol. 1, p. 4]
We have to remember that newspapers at the time were organs of political parties. So Democratic papers had a vested interest in opposing Republican policies. Douglas newspapers tended to play up the danger of secession while Lincoln papers tended to downplay it. Part of that explains Greeley. As David Potter explains in _Lincoln's Party in the Secession Crisis,_ the Republicans regarded secession threats as merely empty threats, and there were some attempts to "call the bluff" of the southerners.
And I also see that you mentioned that a majority of the Northern editorials on secession were against secession. Any idea on how many Northern newspapers were suppressed by Lincoln and the federal government? I have seen as high a figure as 300, but no one can provide an accurate, documented count.
-------------------
I have some information on this but I will have to post it tomorrow, as it is getting late here and Mrs. Cash demands my presence.
You repeatedly ask Cash for date of Supreme Court cases on secession/states rights before the war, and Cash has provided them, to include the actual Court Case titles and references. Are you confused over the dates of those cases? I once asked Cash for the dates and he gave them as follows:
Fletcher v. Peck (10 US 87): 1810
McCullough v. Maryland (17 US 316): 1819
Cohens v. Virginia (19 US 264): 1821
Gibbons v. Ogden (22 US 1): 1824
You can look up the actual cases by the numbers Cash gives, along with the dates. It pretty much established in law, way before the concept of secession, that the states were subordinate to the federal government and had no sovereignty over the federal government, period.
I also have to admit to confusion as to why it is so important to establish a legal reason for secession within the US Constitution, either by omission or by some hidden, obscure statement in the 10th or whatever 'excuse' amendment some wish it were hidden.
Why can no one who supports the Southern side of the war simply admit that the attempt to leave the Union was nothing more or less than rebellion? General Lee wasn't afraid to say secession was nothing but rebellion. No where in the Consitutuion does it say you can or can not assassinate the President, but is someone going to 'prove' to me that its OK by that document?
I must also admit that after years of debate and discussion on this board and others, endless hours of research and reading, tracking down sources and historical documents at the behest of my debating friends, the facts lead me to only one conclusion concering the late war.
That no matter what facts, what historical documentation or research is presented to refute the idea of peaceable secession, none of it can pierce a person's faith. Faith requires no proof, no fact, no history, just a firm belief in what that person feels is right.
Facts, backgound and documentation make for a better argument.
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
I apologize profusely for not responding sooner to your posting as I've been jumping back and forth between this and the "Slavery Thread" and somehow I have missed your message. Having survived an outright flanking, I have dragged myself off the battlefield and am limping over to try and answer your recent questions. I recognize how jaded you must feel by my relentless and repetitious questions, but please believe that I value your opinion, even if I don't necessarily agree with your viewpoints.
My information on Howard Cecil Perkin's survey comes from Northern Editorials on Secession by Howard Perkins (The William and Mary Quarterly) and also the same book that Cash mentioned. You will also find an article written on this subject by none other than Mr. DiLorenzo (Rewriting History, American Style) and before you prepare to tighten my noose, please understand that although you despise his works, I don't, and you simply can't discredit everything that Thomas DiLorenzo has to say.
We have done the "300 Newspapers that were shut down during the Lincoln administration" dance recently and I did cite at least a dozen newspapers that were closed at the time, but I can go back and re-post this information, if you like. There are many sources that quote this number of newspapers Neil, but again, I have previously listed these in another posting.
Thank you for bearing with this pesky Canadian. :-)
There does come a time in these threads where there's frustration; thinking that the other is not hearing what is being said. If I send a post which seems flippant, it is out of that frustration. I respect what your saying. Its obvious you've put time, effort and thought into your position. That I don't agree with you doesn't change that.
1. I've read it four times. It just doesn't say what you think it says. I never said a state in the union is not connected through the Constitution to the other states. It is, through the central gov't. But that does not say that a "state is not sovereign." It just says its not an unconnected sovereign. By that, it is acknowledging that, while connected, it is still sovereign. BTW, as to the quote in McCulloch about "bound the state sovereignties," it clearly refes to the states as sovereign.
2. As I've said, of course people voted at the state conventions. But ratification was required by nine "states." There was no call for a popular vote of the national citizenry to ratify. There's a difference, with distinction. By analogy, you could say that the people elect the President, but they don't. The electoral college system, to which the people send representatives from their state, elects the President. Regardless of what anyone says, ratification didn't come directly from the people by popular vote. It came from these state conventions who drew the rules by which their state would ratify or not. I'm sorry if Mr. Madison can't read. But what he says didn't count. What the Constitution says counted. The people alone could not give due validity to the Constitution, because the Constitution calls for a different ratification process. Mr. Madison and I don't agree on a lot of things, and Mr. Jefferson and others had their own problems with what Mr. Madison sometimes said.
You state that "This includes the Federal Law that says Louisiana is a state in the Union" and that "Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, Florida, et al, are all States in the Union and each has a Federal Law proclaiming it as a state in the Union." Louisiana didn't become a state by fed law. Nor did any other state; they became states by ratifying (in the case of the original 13) or application by the constitutional process. Fed law could not make Puerto Rico a state unless Puerto Rico asked to become a state (or if we could get a guy like Lincoln to tell them their a state at the point of a gun).
I keep reading, but "Constituent parts" does not mean "political subdivisions." States were and are sovereigns who've decided to cede a PART of their sovereignty to the fed. Political subdivisions are not sovereigns, and exist at the whim of the sovereign from which they draw all their power.
You stated that "That's not the way Constitutional Law works. The US Supreme Court made its ruling based on what the Constitutional Law was **at the time of Texas' secession!!** It is completely authoritative regarding the legality of secession when it occurred." I think you've misconstrued the doctrine of retrospective application as it applies to this discussion. I agree that once the S.Ct. speaks, its said to only be revealing the law that was there all the time. But that doctrine is used to apply S.Ct. decisions to conduct that has already occured and is pending for decision. For example, when the S.Ct. applied the 1st Amend. to the internet, all cases then pending or conduct which had and would occur in that area would be judged as though the 1st Amend. always applied to the internet. OTOH, your statement would seem to require that people or states be bound by S.Ct. decisions that would not be rendered for years in the future. Not only does that lack common sense, in some areas it would be considered invalid application of an ex post facto law. Do you really believe that the seceeding states should have predicted that they'd be bound by Texas v White at the time they seceeded?
You state that "The Constitution itself has clauses that apply directly to states. And there are other laws that apply to the various states. No state, on its own, can claim that these laws and the US Constitution no longer apply to it." Wrong. First, secession is not a power delegated to the fed by the states in the Constitution, nor does the Constitution forbid the power of secession to the states. Given that, a fed law "pursuant therto" could neither delegate that power or prohibit it; otherwise, it wouldn't be "pursuant thereto." Thus, there is nothing in secession that violates the supremacy clause or any other provision in the Constitution. Therefore, by exercising its sovereign right to secede, a state does have the power to say that the Constitution and fed law no longer apply within its sovereign boundaries.
Please read my latest post to Cash re: the import, or lack thereof, of the cited cases. I'm familiar with the cases. They don't stand for the propositions that Cash, or you, state.
Having sovereignty and having sovereignty "over" the fed are two different things. I respectfully submit that, if your research has not come to the concept of dual sovereignty, it has not gone far enough. Dual sovereignty is not an opinion, it is a simple fact of our form of gov't. Nor is it a question of one sovereign "over" another. The Constitution was designed to provide the fed and states with different spheres of sovereignty. As I explained to Cash, it's important to remember from where this sovereign power derives - the states, former colonies. When they decided to give PART of that sovereign power to a central gov't, they did not give it ALL. For example, criminal laws and traffic laws (which don't implicate interstate commerce) are within the sovereign power of the state to legislate. They are not within the fed purview, and any fed court would throw out a challenge to these state laws for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (I know there are exceptions to this rule, but it is the rule nonetheless). ONLY where the Constitution provides the basis of the law in question does the supremacy clause apply. It does not apply, for example, over the state's decision to make the speed limit of your street 25 instead of 35. It is important to recognize that the supremacy clause is limited to the sovereign powers conferred to the fed by the states.
You state that "I also have to admit to confusion as to why it is so important to establish a legal reason for secession within the US Constitution, either by omission or by some hidden, obscure statement in the 10th or whatever 'excuse' amendment some wish it were hidden." Its a good question. I'll try to resolve it for you, but why it's important to me is personal, and I don't know that it will make it important to you. But first, I find the plain language of the 10th Amend. anything but obscure. In fact, I think its very clear. If you look at the history of the bill of rights, specifically the 10th Amend., you'll find that it was intended to make express that which was implied from the beginning. In the beginning, you'll find that the several sovereign states delegated a PART of their sovereignty to the states. By the structure of the Constitution, it is necessarily implied that those powers not delegated to the fed were retained by the states. But the states were fearful (with good reason) that the fed would attempt to expand its power into areas of sovereignty retained by the states. So as not to rely on constitutional structure, so as not to have to rely on implication, the 10th Amend. was passed to make express that which had been implied. I've gone through this bit of history because of your characterization of the 10th Amend. as an "excuse" amendment. I'm not sure why you denegrate the bill of rights; those who get a fair trial or exercise the right to free speech would not do so. To set the record straight, amendments duly passed are as much a part of the law of the Constitution as the original articles; to quote the Constitution, "amendments...[are] valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution..." Art. V.
As I've digressed, I'll get to why the legality of secession is important to me. It is important to be right - to do what is right. It is important in a constitutional form of gov't to follow the law. It is said, in this constitutional form of gov't, that we are a nation of law, not men. To me, that means that you follow the law - the Constitution - even if a majority disagree with it, until that law is changed by the lawfully prescribed method. Assume for the moment that I'm correct that secession is constitutional; that it is legal. Following the Constitution is the right thing to do. It means we respect the law and that we don't deviate from it. That is what a nation of law does; its our heritage and we are bound by it. A nation of men flaps in the breeze of ever-changing, arbitrary majority rule. In the Constitution, we decided that certain things are too important to be left to the whim of arbitrary majority rule. You have, for example, the right to free speech even if the majority would, on any given occasion, take that right away from you. Lincoln and the north sought to take from the southern states their rights regarding slavery. Slavery is a bad thing, and the poorest of poster children for states' rights. Nevertheless, it was a states' right. The north should have proposed a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. But, you say, they didn't have the votes to pass it. True enough. Under the Constitution, you live with the law or change it lawfully. The north could do neither. They could not live with a Constitution which held that slavery and secession were lawful (again simply assume the truth of that for discussion). They didn't have the votes to change the law. So Lincoln went outside the law. The Constitution allows secession, but the north would not. IMO, not allowing secession is not an option the north, Lincoln or the fed had under the Constitution. In that moment when they sought to forcibly repatriate the seceeded states, they were 1. in the wrong, 2. outside the Constitution, and 3. opened up that Pandora's box of becoming a nation of men without being bound by the law. In other words, if we don't follow our own rules, there is no law. That became the heritage we followed. As a result, we are less of a nation. Each individual is closer to a group having no rules to prescribe our conduct. This didn't destroy all law, as we still have a vestige of the law. It just means, when push comes to shove, your rights are easier to push and shove away because the Constitution and law are less of an obstruction. IMO, the Constitution and law should obstruct conduct where the conduct is inconsistent with the Constitution and law.
I don't discount the import of faith. But, IMO, that is not the topic. The topic is the legality of secession. Faith is not the answer to the question. The Constitution should be.
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]
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
