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.
Well friends, I haven't stepped in it in nearly a whole day, so here is something that goes along with the post on Lincoln starting the war.
On the floor of Congress, 1847 ---
"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." J. S. Tilley, /i{Facts the Historians Leave Out}, p. 32
and in 1861...
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can excercise their constitutional right of amending it, or excercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Speech, 1861.
No much difference in the two is there?
So, when did Mr. Lincoln decide that what he said in 1847 and reemphasized in 1861 was not exactly what he meant?
On the floor of Congress, 1847 ---
"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." J. S. Tilley, /i{Facts the Historians Leave Out}, p. 32
Lincoln was talking about Texas and her declaration of Independence from Mexico. He specifically spells out that this was a REVOLUTION in which Texas overthrew the Mexican Government. He is talking about a MORAL right. The key phrase in this statement is "being inclined and having the power". The Texans were so inclined and were physically capable of forcibly resisting the attempts by Mexico to keep them from doing so. This is a key element in any REVOLUTION, having the capability to forcibly resist attempts by the government being overthrown to compel them to follow the existing laws. The founders of this country well understood this principle when they declared their independence from England. The results of a failure to forcibly resist England's attempts to get them to follow the existing laws of the existing government would have been death by hanging for all the signers of the Declaration of Independence as they had ILLEGALLY declared themselves independent of the Royal government.
("This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can excercise their constitutional right of amending it, or excercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Speech, 1861. )
Lincoln is indeed saying much the same thing here with the specific difference that he is pointing out that the US Constitution is rather unique in that it contains within it specific instructions as to how it may be amended. Barring the use of these provisions, the only choice is a REVOLUTIONARY moral right to overthrow the government. There is never a LEGAL right involved in REVOLUTION. It is an explicitly ILLEGAL act and must neccessarily be accompanied by the power to forcibly accomplish such a goal. Lincoln spelled out very plainly that in his view there was no LEGAL right to secede from the Union under the Constitution which he was sworn to uphold. History tells us that the Southern states lacked the power to forcibly carry out such a revolution. There is no contradiction in the two statements or in Lincoln's actions regarding these statements and the secession attempt by the south. In other words my friend, Lincoln said exactly what he meant in both instances.
I agree that there is no contradiction between the two statements. I also believe Lincoln said the same thing both times. If you ask me it is just a matter of semantics. The facts are that Lincoln as would have many others welcomed a rebellion in Mexico because where else would the the newly formed government full of ex-Americans go but the U.S. In 1847, Rebellion was OK in Mexico because it was to the advantage of the U.S.in 1860 Rebellion was not OK because it was to the disadvantage of the U.S.
If you recall, the Mexican government INVITED American citizens to populate the area. To own the land, all they had to do was swear loyalty to the Mexican government, practice the Catholic faith and improve the land upon which they resided. Then as was the American way back in the 19th century, greed held sway over common sense and they felt that Texas was theirs for the taking.
Lincoln was no different. Even though he whined about where the war started and soon earned the sobriquet "Spotty" Lincoln because he kept insisting on knowing the exact spot where the Americans attacked the Mexicans at the beginning of the conflict, he also realized what a boon Texas would be to the Union. Hence the 1847 speech in which he supported the right of the Texican's to dishonor their agreement with the Mexican government.
In other words, he changed his tune depending on the advantage or disadvantage to the U.S. Principles took the back seat.Manifest Destiny and Greed were now in the driver's seat. I don't believe he believed his own words and the distinctions between Revolution and legality. It was all a smoke screen in my opinion.
Completely off topic... Bill, I just put 2 and 2 together... were you on the Mississippi Queen Civil War cruise about 3-4 years ago? With your wife Regina?
Zou,
Nope, wife is Ruth and although I would love to go on a Mississippi Queen ACW cruise, with my disloyalty to the Union, they would probably put me off on a sandbar. I understand that was quite common in the 1850's on the Ohio.
Old Reb
Rick,
There is an old southern saying that goes, "what's gravy for the goose is sauce for the gander."
What you are telling me is,
1. - it was not only good but right for the 13 colonies to break away from England in 1776 because England's rules and laws did not include representation from the colonies;
2. - it is right and good for Texas to secede from Mexico, even after giving their vow to remain faithful to the Mexican government, because Mexico's rules and laws were not including the desires of the Texicans;
3. - it was a bad bad thing for the South to secede from the Union even after ratifying a Constitution that was not binding to keep them in the union, after the same Union and its future president decided to do away with the portions of the Constitution that it did not see fit to follow, and to not enforce the laws established by that Constitution, and to determine that any new states entering that Union would be established such that the South would lose influence in Congress so future laws would not include the South's interest.
Have I got that all right and correct? And Mr. Lincoln, who said all this is good for Texas and the USA in 1847 and stated the same thing again in 1861 suddenly decided that while he would not actually require the Federal government to enforce the fugitive slave act because the individual states could do it, and that he did not support amending the Consitution to include guidance on what to do with the territories when they became states regarding the slave issue, and although Mr. Lincoln always stated that the colonies had the right to do what they did, it still was not right for the Southern States to quietly leave the Union, a sentiment that at first was pretty much accepted in the Union. Even Horace Greely said, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace." Of course, that was before Lincoln and Seward had a long, fatherly chat with the man who later said, "go west, young man."
I don't know, but there seems to be a fly in the ointment here. And as I started this out, seems to me, what's gravy for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Best regards, and have a great weekend.
I will spend my doing some research for the continuance of this excellent forum.
OldReb
Yes Susan, I remember you well. How did your Civil War novel attempt go? That was a great cruise wasn't it? Regina and I are thinking of doing it again when we can scrape up enough money. We had a B cabin last time. She wants to shoot for an A or AAA the next time.
(What you are telling me is,
1. - it was not only good but right for the 13 colonies to break away from England in 1776 because England's rules and laws did not include representation from the colonies; )
Actually, I am telling you no such thing. I made no judgement about the Right or Wrong of any of the three incidents in my post. I happen to think (with the aid of hindsight) that it was a good thing for those of us who live on this side of the Atlantic that the founding fathers chose to formulate this country. However, having spent a great deal of time studying the events that led up to the break with England I happen to think that the colonists were on awfully thin ice trying to justify such an action based upon what went on between the colonies and the crown. Nevertheless, whether they were morally Right or Wrong I am still happy with the results.
2. - it is right and good for Texas to secede from Mexico, even after giving their vow to remain faithful to the Mexican government, because Mexico's rules and laws were not including the desires of the Texicans;
Once again, I made no such moral judgement on the actions of Texas in my post. However, since you ask; I believe the break with the Mexican Government was done without provocation from the Mexican Government and was undoubtedly carried out only with the tacit assurance from US supporters that they would side with Texas. Much of the friction between the Mexican Government and transplanted Americans in Texas centered around the same issue that was to touch off the Civil War; Mexico's passage of statutes which outlawed the institution of slavery. If I had to make a moral judgement on whether the Texans attempt at declaring themselves independent was morally Right or fair I would have to answer with a resounding NO. As you point out in your post, they had settled in the area by agreeing to abide by the existing laws and were well aware that Mexico's Government was the Legal authority.
(3. - it was a bad bad thing for the South to secede from the Union even after ratifying a Constitution that was not binding to keep them in the union, after the same Union and its future president decided to do away with the portions of the Constitution that it did not see fit to follow, and to not enforce the laws established by that Constitution, and to determine that any new states entering that Union would be established such that the South would lose influence in Congress so future laws would not include the South's interest.)
In my own opinion BAD or GOOD could apply completely to neither party in this particular instance. The discussion over whether secession was Legal under the Constitution properly belongs in a separate forum from this particular one and I would be happy to discuss it in detail but I don't think it belongs under this particular post. I was just pointing out that Lincoln saw it as ILLEGAL under the Constitution which he was sworn to uphold, whether he saw it as morally right or not. If he is sworn to uphold the Constitution and he believes actions taken by the southern state abrogate the Constitution then he has only two choices; take action or abandon his oath. This is the point he was trying to make in his inaugural address. Whether he sympathised with the seceeding states, thought they were morally Right, Wrong, or were in some gray area between the two; he was sworn to uphold the Constitution as he understood it.
I like the southern saying; of course being born in northern Alabama and raised in southern Tennessee I have a fondness for many such sayings (only some of which are fit for polite company). I have often heard a similar saying here in the deep south "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". My dad alternated this with "there's two sides to every coin" and "the only way to guarantee that you don't learn is to think you know it all". As always, I enjoy the exchange of insights and hope that you have a good weekend as well.
S.M. George,oops, sorry I went back to edit it but the board wouldn't let me. I spelled Sherri S-U-S-A-N. :-) Oh well. It s been a while. I communicated for a while with a friend of yours from Idaho about the 61st NYV. Gave her some info about 61st NY guys buried here in Rockland County.
Bill, quite all right, I've been called a lot worse things!! As to your question about my novel, I'm ready to start the fourth and I hope final draft. I've taken a couple more trips to Chickamauga and Chattanooga since the riverboat trip and I find about five more mistakes every time.
And Deb appreciated the information that you gave her. Is there any more going on about those New York flags?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
