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.
OK - you guys take a look on the ground. You will find my gauntlets there. Choose your seconds. I will meet you anywhere and at any time. I am at your service.
Here is a salient point...re: secession, and did the states really secede?
If they did not, then why did the Union make each of the seceded states reapply for statehood?
Thaddeus Stevens, leader of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives, believed, in fact, that southern planters should be kept under military rule for a period of probation. Others were determined to give the Negro the right to vote immediately. Actually, the chief concern of Congress at this time - rather than the readmission to the Union of the southern states - was the condition of the emancipated Negro, and in March 1865, it established the Freedman's Bureau, which was to assume a position of guardianship over the Negro and direct his first efforts at self-support.
Throughout the summer of 1865, without consulting Congress, for that body was not in session, Johnson proceeded to carry out, except for minor differences, Lincoln's plan of reconstruction. By presidential proclamation, he appointed a governor for each of the various southern states and freely restored political rights to large numbers of Confederates through the use of his pardoning power. Conventions were held in the southern states which repealed the ordinances of secession, repudiated the war debt, and drafted new constitutions. In time, the people of each state elected a governor and a state legislature, and when the legislature of a state approved the Thirteenth Amendment, Johnson recognized the re-establishment of civil government and considered the state back in the Union, With few exceptions this process had been completed when Congress convened in December 1865. But the southern states were not yet fully restored to their rightful places within the Union, because Congress had not yet seated their Senators and Representatives who now came to Washington, once again to take part in the enactment of laws for the United States.
Both Lincoln and Johnson recognized that Congress would have the right to deny the southern Representatives a seat in Congress tinder that clause of the Constitution which says that "Each house shall be the judge of the . . . qualifications of its own members." Under the leadership of Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, those who sought to punish the south refused to seat the southern delegates, and in the next few months they proceeded to work out a plan of Congressional reconstruction quite different from that which Lincoln had started and Johnson completed.
A mixture of motives caused Congress to reject the Johnson plan. During a war, the power and prestige of the President is, because of the very nature of things, likely to be enhanced, but after the war Congress seeks to reassert its authority. In 1865, there was a feeling that the time had come for Congress to curb the executive's exercise of powers which, under the necessities of war, it had tolerated. Furthermore, there was some feeling in the north that the south should be punished with severity. This feeling was encouraged by the radicals in Congress. They first took advantage of the fact that many southerners who now sought office had ten months before taken an active part in the war to destroy the Union. The vice-president of the Confederacy, for instance, presented himself now as Senator from Georgia. From the southern point of view, the election of their leaders to office was natural, but it was a particularly bitter pill for northerners to swallow.
In addition, it was claimed that the Negro needed protection. As time passed, the idea gained currency that the Negro be given the right to vote and hold office and that he be given complete social and political equality with white citizens. Others, including Lincoln, favored a more gradual enfranchisement with full citizenship rights being first extended to educated Negroes and those who had served in the Union army. But the southern legislatures, created under the Johnson plan, enacted a variety of laws designed to regulate the privileges and rights of the freedmen. To the southerner, confronted with the problem of 3,500,000 Negroes but recently emancipated from slavery, it seemed necessary that the states regulate their activities closely, and they enacted "black codes" of a restrictive nature. To many in the north, this seemed as if the gains of the war were being undone, and northern radicals seized upon the most obnoxious features of these codes to prove that the south was bent on re-establishing slavery.
Gradually, many in the north came to feel that the President had been too lenient, and there developed a wide popular sympathy for the radicals in Congress. That body proceeded to enact over Johnson's veto a Civil Rights Bill in April 1866, and a new Freedmen's Bureau Bill in July 1866, both of which virtually prevented southern legislation from authorizing discrimination. Finally Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment which stated that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The immediate intention of its framers, of course, was to insure the conferring of citizenship upon the Negroes.
All of the southern state legislatures, with the exception of Tennessee, refused to ratify the amendment. Some of them voted against it unanimously. Such action seemed proof enough to certain factions that severe punishment was necessary and that the north must intervene to protect the rights of the freedmen. The radicals in Congress proceeded to force their plan upon the south and in March of 1867 passed a Reconstruction Act, ignoring the civil governments which had been established in the south. The act divided the south into five districts and placed them under military rule. It provided an escape from permanent military government by declaring that if the people of Confederate states would take an oath of allegiance, ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, and adopt Negro suffrage, they might establish civil governments and be restored to the Union. In July 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and the next year, to fasten Negro suffrage upon the south beyond the power of repeal by a future Congress, the Fifteenth Amendment was passed by Congress and ratified in 1870 by state legislatures. It provided that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
The fact that the Reconstruction Act meant the defeat and humiliation of President Johnson was no small reason for the indefatigable energy with which Congress pushed it. Congressional antipathy to Johnson was so great, in fact, that for the only time in American history, proceedings were instituted to remove the Chief Executive from office. His sole offense was his opposition to Congressional policies and his violent language in criticizing them. The most serious charge his enemies could level against him was that despite a Tenure of Office Act, he had removed from his Cabinet a staunch Congressional supporter. Yet when the impeachment trial was held by the Senate, it was proven that be was technically within his rights in removing the Secretary of War, and even more important, it was impressively pointed out how dangerous would be the precedent if Congress were able to remove a President because he disagreed with an overwhelming majority of Congress. The attempt to remove him from office was unsuccessful and Johnson continued as President until his term expired.
Under the Reconstruction Act, Congress, by the summer of 1868, readmitted to the Union over the President's opposition the states of Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. How representative the new governments of these seven reconstructed states were can be judged from the fact that the majority of the governors, Representatives, and Senators elected were northern men who had come south after the war to make their political fortunes. The Negroes gained complete control of the Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi legislatures. In several other states, though they were a minority in the legislatures, they were a strong voting power. The sprinkling of white southern legislators was unable to hold in check the combination of northerners and newly enfranchised Negroes who, although they undertook valuable work in building roads and bridges and initiating good laws concerning education and charities, were, on the whole, incompetent and wasteful of funds.
In despair, the southern whites who believed their old civilization threatened and could find no legal remedy to stop the new regimes, resorted to extralegal means. The use of violence became more frequent as time passed, and the multiplying excesses and disorders led, in 1870, to the passage of an Enforcement Act which drastically punished those who attempted in any way to deprive the Negro of his civil rights.
The increasing severity of such laws and the steady encroachment of Congress upon the police powers of the individual states impeded the process of spiritual reconciliation with the north so necessary for the restoration of a common love of country. It also arrayed the mass of whites in the south against the Republican Party as the party of the Negro and only increased the solidarity of the Democratic Party in that area. As time passed, it was obvious that the problem of the south was not being solved by harsh laws and continued rancor against former Confederates, And in May 1872, Congress passed a general Amnesty Act restoring full political privileges to all but about five hundred Confederates who had been excluded from the right to hold office and from the franchise, Little by little, state after state elected members of the Democratic Party to office. By 1876, the Republicans remained in power in only three southern states. The election that year, one of the closest in American history and one of the most disorderly, made it plain that the south would know no peace until the troops were withdrawn. The next year, therefore, President Rutherford B. Hayes removed them, admitting the failure of the "radical" reconstruction policy, which had been adopted chiefly because the idealistic wing of the party wished to protect the Negro and because the materialistic wing hoped to hold the south for votes, offices, and power.
Northern rule was over in the south. But the south was now a region handicapped by the devastations of war, burdened by debts created by misgovernment, and demoralized by a decade of racial warfare. After twelve years-the years of "false" reconstruction from 1865 to 1877 -real efforts to rebuild the south began. To repair the havoc of war and the chaotic events that followed was to prove a task of heartbreaking difficulty. For the Civil War and the bitterness it engendered was one of the great tragedies of American history It is only through an understanding of the war, its causes and aftermath, that real insight can be gained into some of the continuing problems of a major American region, the southern United States.
So, there is the start. If there was no secession, then why did the states in the south have to tolerate Military law for 11 years?
I'm not going to try to argue that the Union did itself proud by setting the rules for Reconstruction the way it did. Some of those rules will stand forever to the everlasting discredit of those who wrote them.
But it probably should not have been unexpected that things would play out the way they did. When a war is over, the winners get to write the rules, and the losers have precious little reason to expect those rules to be to their liking.
Moral of the story - do not let yourself get involved in a war until and unless you're darned good and sure you can win it.
Ron, please substitute the word "rebellion" for the word "secession" in the sentence where you ask the question, 'If there was no ******** then why did the states in the South have to tolerate Military law for 11 years?'
Now, in spite of the fact I am probably going to be nailed for using a 'single source' again, I may have an answer for you.
I hit upon a Texas website that stated in spite of the fact that the South had lost the war, the Texas legislature was refusing to ratify the amendments on abolishing slavery and guaranteeing equal rights. They wanted to keep things exactly the way they were before the war.
Seems like that was also the case with the other southern states. It seems they were trying to 'win' in the statehouses what they couldn't win on the battlefield during the war.
Would that be cause enough to place a large, hostile country under martial law? And just because you place them under military rule doesn't mean you concede the fact that they had the 'right' to secede. Just that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing according to your way of thinking (the North).
(Can't wait to hear the reply to this one.)
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 will not substitute rebellion for secession because I can not find enough evidence in any of my readings to indicate the Southern States intended to overthrow the United States Government. See Webster's dictionary, "Rebellion: an uprising or organized opposition intended to change or overthrow an existing government or ruling authority."
The secession of the 11 Confederate States (and it would have been 12 if Lincoln had not had the Congress and Governor of Maryland arrested) was to form a new country, an independent nation, not to overthrow or even change the Union.
Ya'll (the winners) seem intent on placing terms on what we (the losers) did. That bird won't fly. In each of the articles of Secession (there are only 4) the states spelled out what they felt the Federal government was doing wrong. In none of the articles of Secession did they state, "...and the new nation that we create out of this chaos will be intent on overthrowing the existing US Government."
There is my answer. As for martial law and forcing the states to "reenter" the Union, dammit man, you can't have it both ways. Lincoln said the states never seceded, that they were in rebellion. The Congress of the United States and 23 states agreed with him, and for four years, and with the loss of 630,000 lives this issue was debated on battlefields from Pennsylvania to California. [Were we indeed a "large hostile nation" at that time, or a bunch of burned out homes, lost lands, and dead heros? I feel the later, and I think the Federal government just was not happy yet and wanted to rub the nose of the South in the manure just a little bit more.] And yet, at the end, when all was done, the same Federal government said to the 11 defeated Confederate States, "well, you'ins seceded, and now to get back into this wonderful Union, you-ins gotta kiss the magic totem pole and agree to two Constitutional amendments we have passed while you-ins was gone, even though we could have passed a couple of Constitutional amendments back 4 years ago and prevented all this."
That's the way it is if you bring a knife to a gun-fight. You lose and you gotta carry the winners load he places on you for as long as he cares to make you carry it.
So, there it is...I will never substitute any word in any place where the meaning does not belong, not in these posts, in our personal debates, nor in my writing. If you are going to use a term, it must be in keeping with the situation as it truly was (or is) and not in the manner that a person wants it to be.
my very best, old friend.
You got my blood pressure up on this one!
(So, there it is...I will never substitute any word in any place where the meaning does not belong, not in these posts, in our personal debates, nor in my writing. If you are going to use a term, it must be in keeping with the situation as it truly was (or is) and not in the manner that a person wants it to be.)
The last sentence says it all. The fact of the matter is that your own posted definition of Rebellion fits the situation perfectly as has already been discussed in some detail. The Federal government and the Constitution were the "existing government or ruling authority" in the southern states previous to secession. The Articles of Secession and the formation of the Confederacy was an "organized opposition intended to change or overthrow" said government. I can scarcely think of a more accurate description of the "situation as it truly was" even if it is not in the manner that you want it to be.
Try to keep your blood pressure down as I would look with great disfavor on events that might lead to an end to our continued discussions and look forward to our eventual meeting in person when I will take you up on your earlier offer of a drink and respond in kind.
Irish, my man...NO!
OK - that said, how do you possibly derive that the Southern States wanted to overthrow the Federal government? The colonies did want to overthrow King George's rule, because they felt they should not be ruled by a power that cared not for their thoughts or feelings. So they carried on an open rebellion. The Texicans did the same thing, from Gonzales to San Jacinto, they openly fought with Mexico and Emperor Santa Anna to free their country from the strangle-hold that Mexico was applying.
In the Southern States, the right of secession was practiced to remove them selves from what they saw as a tyrannical government out to ruin them financially and to establish their own government. Had Lincoln left the Southern states alone, had he not forced reinforcements into Sumter and Pickens, had he said, "fine, go in peace", no war would have occurred. Because of his insistence that the Union remain whole, war came.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
(In the Southern States, the right of secession was practiced to remove them selves from what they saw as a tyrannical government out to ruin them financially and to establish their own government.)
Although we may argue over whether Secession was a legal right or not or whether the attempted withdrawal from the Union was a rebellion, a revolution, or a legal secession; I would suspect that you would logically have to admit that the result of such an action was in fact "an uprising or organized opposition intended to change or overthrow an existing government or ruling authority." (Your definition of rebellion).
Surely you don't expect to try an convince anyone that the net effect was not the overthrow of the existing government in the Southern states. Unless you submit that the Constitution and the Federal Government were not the "existing government or ruling authority" before the event (secession) how can you logically assert anything different.
1) The Constitution and the Federal Government that it represented WERE the "existing government or ruling authority" before the event
2) The Constitution and the Federal Government that it represented WERE NOT the "existing government or ruling authority" after the event
I fail to see how it can argued that this occurred; how a NEW government replaced the EXISTING government without first overthrowing it.
Regardless of why, how, legal, or illegal, you cannot replace the existing government without first doing away with it. It is a logical absurdity. The attempt at withdrawal from the Union was an attempt to overthrow the existing government in the south. There simply is no way to attempt one without effecting the other.
Rick
I do not see this as a legal absurdity.
If I live in a city, and in our subdivision we find we have enough votes to request redistricting such that we are removed from the city that has annexed us, this can happen without overthrowing the government of the city we are removing ourselves from.
As Lincoln said in his 1st inaugural, 9paraphrased) if a husband and wife divorce, they can go their own separate ways. He of course goes on to say this can not happen in the US because of common borders, etc. But yet, we have common borders with two different countries, Canada and Mexico. We (Americans) fought both of these at different times in our history and yet today we have amicable agreements with each, trade agreements, etc.
Why could this not have happened in the South? Because Lincoln would not let it happen. The majority of Northerners were tired of the South's constant whining, whimpering and *****ing about the North and its ways of doing things. They were really kind of glad to see the southern sisters depart. Lincoln on the other hand would not and could not let the South go.
Secession was not about overthrowing the Federal government. It was a divorce of states from each other. Just as no state had to vote to let a new state into the Union there was no reason for a state to vote to let a state depart the union.
And the definition quoted came from Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, copyright 1994, Houghton Mifflin Co., not mine. I ain't that bright.
If I live in a city, and in our subdivision we find we have enough votes to request redistricting such that we are removed from the city that has annexed us, this can happen without overthrowing the government of the city we are removing ourselves from.
You are, in effect, "intending to change or overthrow an existing government or ruling authority" by changing the ruling authority; the city. Before the request the city is the ruling authority, afterwards they are not. Regardless of what you change it to, you are changing the ruling authority.
To expand the analogy further; as you point out in your example, you have the requisite duty to "request redistricting". I think you would meet with little success without first requesting the permission of the ruling authority (the city). Simply declaring yourself no longer under the authority of the city would most likely meet with unsatisfactory results.
Your arguments give me a headache. I feel like the man that keeps seeing something in the peripheral of his vision but never sees the image clearly enough to identify it.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
