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.
A month ago, Frank wrote in response to a comment I had made about Jeff Davis committing treasonous acts:
"You also asked if Jefferson Davis commit treasonous acts... Obviously he did- whether you agree with the southern cause or not- seceding from the Union, Firing on Fort Sumpter, siezing forts, armouries and most other government property before the Firing on Fort Sumpter are treasonous acts... They , Of course, had to be dealt with... I sure you would have been very suprised if Lincoln said, "let them have it" without a fight... "
Frank, Jeff Davis never authorized the secession of southern states. As a matter of fact, Davis actually opposed secession as a choice to resolve the differences between north and south. Nor did he authorize the seizure of any federal properties because this was accomplished before most of the states even seceded, meaning Davis had not been selected as President of the CSA yet.
As for Sumter, Lincoln assured the CSA government a number of times that he would not attempt to reinforce the garrison, that he intended to resupply only using unarmed supply ships, etc. and then Mr. Lincoln sent WAR SHIPS (the Pocahontas, the Pawnee, the Hariett Lane) to attempt to enter Charleston Harbor. For two long hard weeks, the CSA government, the governor of South Carolina and the commander of the garrison at Charleston had done everything they could to get Major Anderson to leave the fort. He refused as Lincoln was assuring him (Anderson) daily by telegraph that he would be resupplied AND REINFORCED (telegram of April 4, urging Anderson to "hold out").
By the end of March, 1861, Lincoln had already decided to reinforce Sumter and Pickens. Seward urged Lincoln to quit preaching abolition and preach unification. Both Lincoln and Seward knew any action taken must be taken by the South or the dissatisfied north would not support the war. As early as April 8, Lincoln had informed the governor of PA what he intended at Fort Sumter and what he anticipated the garrison at Charleston would do. He knew his actions would lead to the firing on Fort Sumter or the warships. Either way, Lincoln would get the action he needed to unify the North, which was fractioned over secession, with a majority not giving a tinker's **** about the Southern States leaving.
No sir, Jeff Davis did order Beauregard not to allow the reinforcing of Sumter, and after learning that Lincoln refused to recognize the Confederacy, he did order the reduction of Sumter, but sir, he was no longer a citizen of the United States as he had thrown his hat in with the Confederacy.
He was no more treasonous to the US than any other officer or common soldier in the military who chose to forsake their soldierly oaths and take up the butternut and gray. And with the exception of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, these men (the survivors) were all gladly and happily taken BACK into the Army following the war. Many would go on to recieve recognition and fame in the Spanish American War. Mssrs Davis and Lee would not regain their citizen ship in the United States for over 100 years.
Of course, when you are the victor, you can not only write the history, you can make the rules. Mississippi discovered that small fact when the elected Governor of the State was turned out of office at Bayonet point by the Federal government following the war.
My best, sir
and have a wonderful weekend.
BTW - The US Soccer team lost to Germany this a.m. while I was writing this 1 - 0. I am distraught.
Just a point about oaths if I may. I may be wrong but then again maybe I'm not. If anyone wants to jump in here and correct or side with me please feel free to do so.
Lets start with this. Until the summer of 1861, when a West Point cadet was sworn in he swore fealty to his STATE not the FEDERAL government.Secondly, if you resigned your commission and it was accepted, I do not believe you are bound by that oath.
I base this supposition on two things: one being the fact that no other citizen is BOUND to take an oath to preserve the Union, etc. Only the military or FEDERAL Officers of a certain grade are required to take an oath. The other being this. I took the oath when I enlisted in the Coast Guard about a trillion years ago. When I was in (can't speak about now, but then) after your initial term of enlistment was up, if you either reenlisted or extended your original enlistment, you had to take the oath again to cover that time period past your initial enlistment.
That happened at one of my duty stations to a fellow who extended his enlistment for a year. After a couple of months somebody realized that he did not take the oath again and it was duly administered by the C.O. of the station. Therefore it follows that once you leave Federal service, you are not bound by a previous oath.
You might be prone to consider that a man is a traitor MORALLY. But from what I have seen and heard and read. As long as a resignation was tendered, received and approved, there was nothing illegal or traitorous about the act of resigning and fighting for the Confederacy. Anybody care to comment?
The Officer's Oath is re-administered at every promotion. When it is re-administered, every officer present is expected to stand and join in the re-affirmation.
Once one has resigned, you are no longer bound by the oath. HOWEVER, knowledge of classified information and the obligation not to reveal it continues to be binding regardless of how long a time you have been out or how long you have been out from under the oath.
Note that most government officials, civil servant positions and veterans' organizations continue to require an oath that includes protecting the United States and the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
(Message edited by aggie80 on June 21, 2002)
__________________ Mark W. Swarthout, Esq.
GGGrandson of Pvt. John W. Swarthout, Company E, 148th NYVI - Wounded at Cold Harbor.
GGGGrandson of Pvt. Henry Stephens, Company D, 137th NYVI - Wounded at Culp's Hill, Gettysburg.
This part of the Constitution was debated in some detail on August 20, 1787 in the Constitutional Convention. The first draft defined treason as follows:
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against the United States, or any of them; and in adhering to the enemies of the United States, or any of them. The Legislature of the United States shall power to declare the punishment of treason. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses. No attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, nor forfeiture, except during the life of the persons attainted.
This was discussed in the Convention at large in some detail. It was considered somewhat ambigous in several ways. In the first place it did not define a distinction clearly between Treason against a particular state and Treason against the United States. Was this one crime or two? If two, which Legislature would have primary control of punishing such an act?
The point was also made by several members that it would be possible and even probable that Treason might be committed against the United States by members of a particular State in a contest between the two; and in such cases people MUST neccessarily be traitors to one or the other. As the Convention was entrusted with adopting a document for the United States government it was thought that this provision should be aimed at cases of treason against the United States government and not the respective State governments.
For these reasons, the clause was modified to the form in which we find it today:
Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Obviously, since Jefferson Davis was neither convicted or tried for treason under this clause of the Constitution, it would in error to claim that he was in fact guilty of treason for his acts committed during the war. However, bearing in mind the discussions in the Constitutional Convention concerning how to define treason it seems highly likely that he would have been had the US Government been so inclined.
Why was this never attempted? It seems by this definition of treason " levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" there were a considerable number of southerners who would have had to have been tried as well in order to be equitable and even the most Radical of the Republicans realized this was both impossible and detrimental to the country.
"Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Rick I find section 3 quite interesting, don't you? To me it signifies that state's rights was still paramount because of the use of the personal pronoun "Them" or "their". "Them implies that the states are still separate, does it not?
Thus the door is left ajar as to the status of the states within this constitution. If "Them" had been changed to "it", what would the results have been? It goes back to an earlier post I made demonstrating that the West Point Cadets swore fealty to the State from which they came, NOT the United States.
Bill,
I don't think that it implies the states to be sovereign at all. As in many cases in the Constitution "them" or "they" refers to "the people of the United States" as this is who was required to ratify the document. There is considerable discussion over this in the Convention as well. The reason for the Constitutional Convention in the first place was that the Articles of Confederation did not give the Federal Government the power to enforce its rulings over the states. The states would simply ignore any such action that they didn't care for and as a result, the country was on the verge of political and economic collapse. The whole convention was in agreement on this point. Note the following three resolutions that were adopted at the very start of the Convention:
RESOLVED,
1) that a Union of the States merely federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the Articles of Confederation, namely common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare
2) that no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual Sovereignties, would be sufficient
3) that a national government ought to be established consisting of a SUPREME Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary
The idea that the states were to be sovereign to the Federal government had died with the failure of the Articles of Confederation.
Rick, the people did not ratify the constitution, their representatives did.Is that correct or not. "Them" refers to the state, I believe. And I am sorry, but I cannot get away from the fact that the oaths were sworn to the STATE and not the the USA. Was that an oversight or was it intentional?
If you swore fealty to the state over the country how could "the idea that the states were to be sovereign to the Federal government had died with the failure of the Articles of Confederation." be an accurate statement? When you swore to that pre-1861 oath, what were you protecting? Were you protecting the STATE, the USA, the Constitution or a combination of all three? Why did they wait til the summer of 1861 to change the oath to swear fealty to the US?
Bill,
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
Notice the wording of the requirement. "Conventions of nine states." It does not say "nine state legislatures" or simply "nine states" because the source of the authority is the "people of the states". From the Federalist #39 by Madison:
On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose, but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State,--the authority of the people themselves.
As for the oaths you refer to, the plain and simple fact is that I don't know. I am not familiar enough with them to make any kind of qualified answer to your question.
The basic reason for the calling of the Constitutional Convention was that the Articles of Confederation were a failure at providing the security that they were intended to provide. The delegates to the convention were convinced by experience that a central government strong enough to require the States common cooperation was a neccessity. Obviously, the line between powers of the federal government and powers of the state government was in contention before during and after this convention. However, it is obvious from the notes on the convention itself, that the delegates understood and approved of the notion that the states must give up the idea of total sovereignty. I have a copy of the letter sent out with the Constitution somewhere that I will attempt to relocate and post.
Bill,
Ok, I found it. Below is an excerpt from the letter that explains the feelings of the delegates much better than I can:
It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all- Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on the situation and circumstances, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as the their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.
In all our deliberations in this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on the points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.
That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every State is not perhaps to be expected; but each will doubtless consider, that had her interest alone been consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.
I have a book entitled "Notes of the Debate in the Federal Convention of 1787" written by James Madison that is most enlightening. It follows the debates on the Constitution from start to finish and is a model for compromise of individual interests for the betterment of the whole. I would highly recommend this book for anyone interested in how the Constitution came to be written.
I was a history major when I graduated from Roanoke College in 1974. Much of what you just quoted is climbing out of the deep recesses in my mind. I do concur with the statements you made about the Constitution and its adoption over the Articles of Confederation with strong federal government over states rights.
One only has to look at Davis' difficulties with Georgia which nearly seceded from the Confederacy. And, also North Carolina which had an over-abundant supply of uniforms, yet refused to distribute them to the needier states. The support of States Rights, definitely contributed to the loss of the war.
I am going to try to do some research on it though my time is limited. If anyone out there can explain the origin of the oath of allegiance, who authored it and why fealty was sworn to the state, I would really appreciate it. For the life of me I cannot understand why such an oath would be administered when it is the Union, the Officer corps served and not the state. That is unless it was some sort of twisted way to either please the south or recognize the fact that the cadets were appointed by people from the state in which they resided, except in Pickett's case when Lincoln actually sponsored him.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
