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.
I am hoping that you might join me here in the library and help me breeze through The Second, Ninth and Tenth amendments. There is a dichotomy between the intent of these Amendments and President Lincoln's actions, which I'm unable to reconcile, and I know that you will walk me through this.
Since The Ninth and Tenth Amendments compliment each other, and combined present a powerful argument that the right of secession is reserved to the states, it's interesting to note that President Lincoln became eerily silent regarding these two Amendments, while making a great deal of noise in other areas. Not only did Lincoln ignore (or eviscerated/gutted ) The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, but of course he replaced them with an Amendment of his own.
Again, The Ninth Amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. My understanding is that The Ninth Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to make clear that rights other than those specified were retained by the people. Would the right for a people to secede then be an unenumerated right protected by The Ninth Amendment?
The Tenth Amendment states: 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. Again, the meaning here is very plain to me - that the States retain the right to secede but it stands to reason that a brilliant lawyer such as President Lincoln would find a way around the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Regarding the Second Amendment, and it's intent, (the right of the people to keep and bear arms and to form a well regulated Militia in order to protect the security of a free State) if the States have a right to protect themselves against federal tyranny by force, wouldn't they also have a right to do so by the peaceful means of secession? By seizing the weapons of citizens in border states, didn't President Lincoln violate/ignore their rights protected under The Second Amendment?
My apologies, I hadn't quite finished my posting and I accidentally hit the send button.
I just wanted to add that I have not been able to find a singular document which indicates that President Lincoln at any time addressed The Ninth and Tenth Amendments...or the Second. I see a brilliant man who excelled in the art of convenient silence and impressive language, but I'm curious to know what you see.
Chocolate? Or perhaps an Irish Coffee will revive our spirits!
I would be delighted to chat with you in the library!
I see that you have read Mr. James Ostrowski's views on President Lincoln's arguments against secession.
May I say by way of reply: "The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forebearance in its formation, and surround it with so many guards and securities, if it was to be broken by every state of the nation at will. It was intended for perpetual union so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession."
I also submit the following web site for your consideration:
In my opinion, you cannot take parts of the Constitution and bash Lincoln over the head with them. The times, that of civil war, and acts of rebellion, not some magical notion of 'legal secession', must be considered as the driving forces making up the reasons for the President's actions during the Civil War.
Lincoln was silent on the amendments you mention because, again, in my opinion, he was putting down an illegal rebellion.
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on February 12, 2005)
(Message edited by Unionblue on February 12, 2005)
__________________ "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
Neil,
It seems that more and more your stance is that the ends justifies the means. Or worse, the start justifies the means. Find an enemy, either real or imagined, and you can circumnavigate any law. Very Machiavellian indeed. But this country was not meant to be ruled by a Prince.
YMOS
tommy
I am sorry that you feel that my view is that 'the ends justifies the means.' That was not my intent with Dawna, nor do I feel it has been my view on the board.
I am curious though, where in my above post in my reply to Dawna do you see the evidence my 'the ends justifies the means' stance?
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
Lincoln was silent on the amendments you mention because, again, in my opinion, he was putting down an illegal rebellion.
You and others have often expressed this opinion.. Repeatedly defending Lincoln’s actions against the constitution. Always resorting in the end, to the ‘he had to do it because of the situation he was in,’ ideology. His violation of constitutional rights was ok because he was arm deep in rebellion, I believe the phrase is. 'Putting down an illegal rebellion' does not justify illegal actions. They are constitutional rights. not constitutional privileges. When do two wrongs, not that I feel secession was wrong, make a right? Lincoln himself declared that very that right of a people to secede or leave a nation. Til it did not suit him, at which point he did everything he could, including violating those very rights he had previously insisted that they had.
Lincoln's "end" was preserving the Union. I freely admit that he may have stepped gingerly around some constitutional proscriptions in order to foster the common good -- when so much is at stake, many such actions are understandable if not forgiveable. At any rate, I'm glad he did what seems now to have been the right thing.
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
Thank you for the link that you provided in your last posting. I found it very interesting, although I couldn't find anywhere who had written this informative article.
I do struggle with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the legalities surrounding secession. In truth Neil, logically I cannot dismiss secession as a treasonous act, or an illegal rebellion, and if it was technically legal, then the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were seriously violated.
Please bear with this rather long excerpt from Gene H. Kizer Jrs article on Secession:
There is no evidence that secession was illegal or prohibited by the Constitution, and in fact there is almost overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that secession was a legal, constitutionally sanctioned act, the right of which was mandated by the Founding Fathers, the Revolution itself, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Historian Kenneth M. Stampp, in his book The Imperiled Union, maintains that it is impossible to say that secession was illegal because of the ambiguity of the original Constitution as to state sovereignty and the right of secession. He points out that "the case for state sovereignty and the constitutional right of secession had flourished for forty years before a comparable case for a perpetual Union had been devised," and even then its logic was "far from perfect because the Constitution and the debates over ratification were fraught with ambiguity." It appears that the original intention of an unquestioned right of secession was established by the Founders and took root, as Stampp pointed out, and "flourished for forty years," then later a "perpetual Union" counter-argument developed out of political necessity when Northern states began realizing their wealth and power was dependent on the Union and its exploitation of the South.
There had to be a specific constitutional prohibition on secession for it to be illegal. Conversely, there did not have to be a specific constitutional affirmation of the right of secession for it to be legal. Why? Because the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
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.
There was no constitution prohibition on secession, nor was there a constitutional sanctioning of any kind of federal coercion to force a state to obey a federal law because to do so was to perpetrate an act of war on the offending state by the other states, for whom the federal government was their agent.
The arguments for the right of secession are powerful and convincing. There is the constitutional right, based on the Constitution as a legal compact - the Compact Theory - and there is the revolutionary right, premised on the idea that a free people have the right to change their government any time they see fit. The constitutional right is based largely on the aforementioned 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while the revolutionary right is based on the Declaration of Independence and the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke, that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, . . ."
These words come directly from the Declaration of Independence. This passage was also used, verbatim, in South Carolina's Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. A similar sentiment was expressed by Abraham Lincoln in 1847 on the floor of the United States House of Representatives:
"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 a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."
Horace Greely's New York Daily Tribune published a long, detailed, emotional editorial on December 17, 1860, the day South Carolina's Secession Convention began, strongly supporting the right of secession on the revolutionary basis. The Tribune used the exact same passage used in South Carolina's Declaration of Immediate Causes from the Declaration of Independence, reiterating that the "just powers" of government come from the "consent of the governed" and "'whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute a new government,' &c., &c.", adding that "We do heartily accept this doctrine, believing it intrinsically sound, beneficent, and one that, universally accepted, is calculated to prevent the shedding of seas of human blood. And, if it justified the secession from the British Empire of Three Millions of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
The Tribune goes on to say it "could not stand up for coercion, for subjugation," because "We hold the right of self-government sacred," and if the Southern states want out, "we shall feel constrained by our devotion to Human Liberty to say, Let Them Go!", because self-government is one of the "Rights of Man."
The State's Rights Hartford Convention of New England, aggrieved by the financial losses of New Englanders in shipping during the War of 1812, met in 1815 and seriously discussed seceding from the Union. The Convention selected representatives to go to Washington to present its grievances to the government. It even chose a military leader should their grievances be ignored. Also, arrangements were made for the calling of a second convention, if necessary, to make specific plans to secede. Commissioners were sent to Washington but upon arriving found that the War of 1812 had ended, therefore it was not necessary to air their grievances. The Journal of the Hartford Convention bristles with references to state sovereignty, and with States' Rights language such as the right of a state to decide for itself when a violation of the Constitution occurred. One quote from the Hartford Convention Journal, justifying secession, sums it up:
"Whenever it shall appear that these causes are radical and permanent, a separation by equitable arrangement, will be preferable to an alliance by constraint, among nominal friends, but real enemies, inflamed by mutual hatred and jealousy, and inviting by intestine division, contempt and aggression from abroad."
Some excellent constitutional arguments are summarized in an article entitled "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," by Mr. H. Newcomb Morse, in the Stetson Law Review, which is a publication of the Stetson University College of Law. Morse writes that the War Between the States did not prove that secession was illegal because "many incidents both preceding and following the War support the proposition that the Southern States did have the right to secede from the Union. Instances of nullification prior to the War Between the States, contingencies under which certain states acceded to the Union, and the fact that the Southern States were made to surrender the right to secession all affirm the existence of a right to secede . . ."
He adds that the Constitution's "failure to forbid secession" and amendments dealing with secession that were proposed in Congress as Southern states were seceding strengthened his argument that "the Southern States had an absolute right to secede from the Union prior to the War Between the States."
Briefly, Morse argues that because the Constitution did not forbid secession, then every state acceding to the Constitution had the implied right to secede from it. He says that if men of the caliber of Madison, Hamilton, Wilson and the others meant to forbid secession, they definitely would have said so, and the omission of a prohibition on secession in the Constitution is strong proof that the right of secession existed, and was assumed. He quotes James Madison from The Madison Papers, who wrote "a breach of any one article by any one party, leaves all other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention as dissolved."9 Vermont and Massachusetts, he points out, nullified with statutes, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793, and those two breaches of the compact alone were enough for the South to consider the compact dissolved.
There were many other violations of the Constitution discussed throughout the secession debate including the Northern Personal Liberty Laws which, in effect, nullified the Fugitive Slave Law of the Compromise of 1850, as well as Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution, which dealt with fugitive slaves. At least ten Northern states had statutes that nullified those laws. Other breaches of the Constitution included the harboring of fugitives from justice in the North, specifically two of John Brown's sons who had been with him and participated in insurrection and murder along with him. They were wanted in Virginia for participation in Brown's attempted slave insurrection at Harpers Ferry, and were being harbored in Ohio and Iowa. Other violations included the North's attempted obliteration of Southern "domestic tranquility" by sending incendiary abolitionist material in the mail that encouraged slave revolt, and by Northerners who had financed John Brown. There was also the Republican publishing of 100,000 copies of Hinton Helper's The Impending Crisis, which called for slave revolt. The Republicans endorsed it in Congress and used it as a campaign tool.
To prove the right of a state to determine for itself when the Constitution has been violated, Morse quotes Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions which point out that if the government had the right to determine when the Constitution was violated, then the government would be the arbiter of its own power and not the Constitution. The Kentucky Resolutions also reaffirm state sovereignty and independence.
Lincoln once argued that it might be necessary to violate part of the Constitution in order to save the whole, but by that reasoning, a man who is sworn to uphold the Constitution could justify violating 99 per cent of it.
One of the problems which arises when an erstwhile nation becomes divided into two regions, with mutually exclusive aims, is that you have "Northern interests" and "Southern interests" but no longer any "American interests".
In those circumstances one should be suspicious of anyone claiming to act in the national interest or for the common good. All he can really be doing, by definition, is furthering the interests of one region or the other. And so the war for the preservation of "national government" and "The Union" was really a war to promote the interests of the North and the Republican Party.
"The common good" must include benefits to the South. What benefit accrued from invasion, conquest and impoverishment?
An interesting site, once you have read through it all. I would like your opinion of it once you have. And Dawna, in answer to Mr. Kizer's views on the Jefferson's Virginia Resolutions and such, please view the following site.
There I hope you will see how some confuse what Jefferson really intended along with Madison and how this gets warped into an argument for secession.
Tommy, you have expressed my biggest problem when discussing secession with you, that you don't believe it was wrong. From that basis, it is hard to muster up ANY argument that it was wrong, if it is simply going to crash against your belief system. I will not argue religion or belief with someone, as historical or legal evidence need not apply. We have both been here before and we both know where we stand, at complete opposites.
But, I offer the following web site for your viewing.
But I must admit I weary at the long and cherished argument that Lincoln must always be the bad guy here because, as you say, he violated the Constitution, even though this time you allude to the fact that he was fighting a rebellion. You seem to be of the opinion, and I admit I am assuming here, that ANY violation of the Constitution, at ANY time, peace or war, is wrong, that the rights you mention are just that, rights, not privileges.
I infer from that statement you feel there is no emergency, no crisis, no state of affairs, no rebellion, no war where normal, peace-time execution of the law cannot take place. Lincoln was wrong to operate in ANY manner other than normal conditions in normal times, that there can be no excuse, emergency or condition that would be permitted other than what was expected of a sitting President in normal, peacetime conditions.
Then why aren't you hammering Jefferson Davis? Why aren't you taking on Constitutional violations of the CSA? The arrests without warrent? Newspapers attacked and shut down? Citizens placed in jail for exercising their right of free speech and assembly? And why, if you can find the time, did Jefferson Davis feel that he had to DO such things during his administration during the Civil War? Can't be because his country was at war, we've thrown THAT excuse right out the window. Couldn't be because he had folks right in his back yard that didn't agree with his aims or war policys or maybe didn't even agree with the idea of secession or a Southern Nation at all, could it?
Nope, ol' Jeff should have kept to the straight and narrow by your observations and standards that you are holding Lincoln to. That thing called a war should have had NO impact whatsoever on his actions and thinking when directing a war right on his borders, and at times, right in his back yard. Even when his government was in flight, he should have followed procedure, filled out all the forms and stuck to the absolute letter of the law.
And if you think he did, Lincoln did not violate ANY portion of the Constitution.
When do two wrongs make a right? What 'right' does a drowning man have in the middle of the ocean? What 'right' does a soldier have when he is shot in the back by a hidden sniper? In a barfight with a bigger, stronger man, what 'right' do you suppose this man is going to respect before he stabs you with a knife he pulls from under his shirt?
Again, a lot of this comes from my feelings that come from being baffeled by the idea the South is somehow always looked upon as the injured party here. That the very same acts you find unreasonable and dictatorial are OK south of the Mason-Dixon.
And here's the kicker, not that I believe that Lincoln did violate the Constitution, I am of the opinion in war, things change. Being a member of the military for 20 years, I know that in the life of a nation and its army, there are two prime conditions. Peace time and war. In peace time, you fill out the forms, go through channels, wait your turn, account for every penny and go to a lot of parades.
In war time, you smash the locks of the arms room, break open the ammunition boxes and try to kill the people who are trying to kill you. You do everything you can to see that your people have what they need, even if you have to buy, steal, take, beg or order it yourself. In short, peace time rules and the way of doing things flies out the nearest bomb crater.
It happened in the Revolutionary War, The War of 1812, Civil War, on both sides, and it happened in WWI, WWII, etc., throughout history when a nation finds itself in dire circumstances. 'In war the laws are silent' is the term currently used by the Supreme Court. It isn't pretty, comfortable, likable or even nice, it just is.
Now, did Lincoln violate the Constitution during the course of the Civil War? Yes. To the extent he was a dictator? No. To the extent he wrecked the very nation and Constitution he was sworn to uphold? No. As Ole has said above, in my own opinion, Lincoln had to step on some toes constitutionaly, but he did not destroy the document in question.
But again, President Davis had to do the same things as Lincoln did in the South during the war, so let us at least be fair and compare the two side-by-side and see who is the worst at violating their particular constitutional rights.
Bill, I again contest the idea that something as mild as 'interests' divided this nation to the point of spilling the blood of over 600,000 of its citizens. And the idea of the 'common good' must include benefits to the South, is that the South already had those common goods, a nation it had controlled and benefited from since its creation. The rebellion, destruction and impoverishment must be laid at the feet of those who felt violence would be the answer to all their sectional problems and the supposed safety outside the Union.
A site for your consideration, Bill. Read all the articles if you get the chance.
(Message edited by Unionblue on February 18, 2005)
(Message edited by Unionblue on February 18, 2005)
(Message edited by Unionblue on February 18, 2005)
(Message edited by Unionblue on February 18, 2005)
__________________ "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
