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.
You guys are big on rights, but you certainly soft-peddle the obligations.
For what it’s worth, I’m still waiting on the terms of this proposed “peaceful” secession. Hal claims the ‘balkanization’ argument is baseless, but Tommy has a third of the remaining Union seceding, the capitol virtually surrounded, and he hasn’t even touched on New York or Virginia. I’ve read too much Confederate history to believe the CSA was immune to further secession. How long to you think, say Texas, would remain in the Confederacy? Governor Brown threatened secession, which is what prompted Davis to exclaim that the CSA “died of a theory”. What about East Tennessee? Davis and the Confederate Congress adopted legislation allowing for the suspension of habeas corpus five days after Davis took office. They imposed marshal law in Richmond and several other major cities, closed-down newspapers, etc. As you can imagine, this went over like a lead balloon in the South. To some, Davis’ actions were understandable – even necessary under the circumstances, but it cost him dearly in terms of political capital and allegiance from the states. Without the ability to compel allegiance, any group is subject to unravel when fervent disagreements arise. We experienced this in the 1780s under the Articles of Confederation; we witnessed it again in the 1860s under both the U.S. and C.S. governments.
Not to beat a dead horse, but how, exactly, are mutual debts, assets, and obligations to be resolved? How are the territories to be addressed? What about fugitive slaves? And most importantly, how are you going to resolve these issues (and plenty others) to the mutual satisfaction of both parties and avoid a war for continental power?
That’s a tall order, gentlemen. And if we fail, Hitler’s giving speeches from Buckingham Palace and he and Tojo can determine how to divvy-up the rest of the planet.
I’ll continue to check back for a clearer explanation of this vision of society living under secessionist principles. Until then, the theory seems to offer little in terms of constructive change, and smacks of little more than abdication of responsibility.
Georgiana, do you consider the Balkanization of the former Soviet Union to be a bad thing? Do you think that Taiwan deserves to be invaded by China should they declare themselves independent? What about Tibet? East Timor? Balkanization as an excuse for preventing self-determination is a weak one.
But it is true that some believed the remaining Northern states could not survive as a free republic after the South departed. "Not only their fanaticism, but their erroneous views of the principles of free Governments, render it doubtful whether, if separated from the South, they can maintain a free Government amongst themselves. Numbers, with them, is the great element of free Government. A majority is infallible and omnipotent. "The right divine to rule in Kings," is only transferred to their majority. The very object of all Constitutions, in free popular Government, is to restrain the majority." - SC's address to the Southern States
As for how long Texas would have remained in the CSA - if one believes in government by consent of the governed, then that is up to the people of Texas to decide, not the people of Alabama or Virginia or New England.
The question of East Tennessee is problematic, since E. Tennessee was never an entity unto itself, had no borders of its own, and had never been admitted into Tennessee. And since the Constitutions (both CSA and USA) were very clear about the process for dividing States, there was no legal basis for the idea.
The CSA was quite willing to settle any join debts, assets, obligations etc. "Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith." - A. Stephens
As for any modern day global ramifications of having two free republics in North America where there was once one, Tojo couldn't even conquer its neighbor China, so I am not sure how would divvy up the world with Hitler. Hitler's blitzkreig was doomed to stall and his empire to contract as soon as Russia got rolling. And the western hemisphere was quite safe from both of these men. Had we adopted the CSA model of peaceful coexistence with us, I am sure that large, strong allies to the south (CSA) and north (Canada) would have resulted in a very strong front against any such threats.
Mr. Hinkle, why would the CSA specifically mention secession of States when they claimed that the existing Constitution already gave them that right?
I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that slavery had become intolerable to the government, since that government's executive branch had repeatedly voiced its opinion that slavery was to be protected where it existed; and since that government's legilsative branch was passing a proposal to amend the constitution to protect slavery where it existed, forever; and that government's judicial branch had repeatedly ruled in favor of slavery.
Lincoln was very clear that slavery was irrelevent to his position of forcing union, and his oath was not to protect the territorial integrity of the Union, but rather to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
APhillbilly, your misconceptions of what slavery was in America, seems to be total.
Hal, please read the first paragraph of my last post, I was just commenting, that leaving the right of secession unmentioned in the CSA Constitution seems incongruous, with the recent experience of war, one the main causes being its not being mentioned in the old Constitution. Knowing how future generations are less scrupulous in remembering their history, than one could hope, it might have been well to make its presence more obvious.
You are familiar with the course of gov't affairs in Washington D.C., from 1850 to 1860, are you not?
Hal, are you saying that Davis and the other secessionists found
the Constitutional slavery guarantee acceptable?
No on has ever argued that the Union was Not the main focus of all of Lincoln,s efforts during the Civil War. In case you don't know, to Lincoln and the North, the Constitution covered and applied to All the States and All it's territories.
Mr Hinkle,
You mean they weren't slaves?
Slavery:
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2a. The practice of owning slaves. b. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery
All seems pretty clear to me.
You asked Hal, "You are familiar with the course of gov't affairs in Washington D.C., from 1850 to 1860, are you not? "
A few days back I posted the link again to the Congressional Globe. May I ask what your purpose was questioning Hal about it? I have read it. Have you? Perhaps I can answer you.
Congressional Globe
Debates and Proceedings, 1833-1873
Georgiana,
You asked:
"but how, exactly, are mutual debts, assets, and obligations to be resolved? How are the territories to be addressed? What about fugitive slaves? And most importantly, how are you going to resolve these issues (and plenty others) to the mutual satisfaction of both parties and avoid a war for continental power?"
My answer is with Diplomacy. Not war. War should never be the first and surely never the best option. Even in times of rebellion. Much less a peaceful attempt at what was to them completely legal secession.
There is no such thing as a "peaceful" secession. It is an impossibility. As Lincoln said:
Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.
You say that peaceful secession is an impossibility, but you don’t appear to explain why. It is a matter of historical record that countries have managed to split into two constituent parts without recourse to war. If you mean that there is something unique about the United States which makes a peaceful split there impossible, perhaps you could explain what it is?
Lincoln’s words on this subject are bizarre, even by his standards:
Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them.
No, but you can build border posts and customs controls.
They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them.
Yes, and what is so difficult about that? Every other continent on earth is divided between multiple nation states. What immutable law of nature says that North America has to be different?
Georgiana,
You state that, without the ability to compel allegiance, any group is subject to unravel when fervent disagreements arise. This cuts to the heart of the difference between our two camps. From our point of view you can no more compel allegiance than you can compel love: if it is to mean anything it has to be freely given. And any erstwhile democratic state which does seek to compel allegiance corrupts itself absolutely and irredeemably.
As a general observation, I am beginning to see the weaknesses of a written Constitution. It seems to encourage the belief that anything which is not specifically mentioned in the said document cannot be allowed – a notion which offends common-sense. Worse than that, it encourages the notion that Constitutional obligations must always be met, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of the cost. This reduces the Chief Magistrate, for example, to the level of a mere automaton. A political system which requires a President to fight a war over Federal forts is self-evidently flawed.
Bill
(Message edited by Bill_torrens on September 01, 2004)
I can appreciate your loss of enamour with a written Constitution, but to me the entire point and beauty of the American Constitution is it's simplicity....the principals are general and the laws are not specific. I know that this simplicity invites multiple interpretations and endless arguments, but I believe that a more specific language would only act as a straight jacket. And there is always the argument of implicit constitutional change.
I do believe that peaceful secession is possible if it is pursued with diplomacy and a well conceived strategy. Examples have already been noted and since I am Canadian, I can verify that Quebec is attempting to do this with peaceful negotiations. Since we are a bilingual country and Quebec contains one quarter of the population of Canada, along with 80% of it's people speaking French as their first language, our government has tacitly acknowledged Quebec's right to secede.
Like the South, Quebec is rich in history and this province has a unique culture that should be embraced. And like the South, the people of Quebec are often the target of national ridicule - which only adds to the rift of alienation.
bokscar: Hal, are you saying that Davis and the other secessionists found the Constitutional slavery guarantee acceptable?
Since it didn't quench their thirst for secession whatsoever, I'd say that they (the US congress) were barking up the wrong tree altogether.
Frank: There is no such thing as a "peaceful" secession. It is an impossibility. As Lincoln said: "...intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them."
All the South wanted was amicable intercourse. Why would it need to be otherwise? We recently applauded the separation of E.Timor with Indonesia. We pushed for the peaceful disintegration of the Soviet Union. We have defended Taiwan's right to operate separately from China. Look at Sweden and Norway. The entire continent of Europe consists of a multitude of small countries living peacefully side by side.
The only reason for a less than peaceful separation is if the larger entity from whence the secession originates refuses to allow it to proceed peacefully.
Thanks for responding to my post. Well first, in regards to peaceful secession I don't know of one. Do you? If so, let me know and I will do some research on them. Also, I believe Grant mentioned this in his memoirs- he said about Territories (that were acquired by the U.S. Government, such as Florida and the Louisianna territory for example) were the property of all U.S. citizens.
To remark on what you said about building border posts and customs controls and such- Sure that could be done, but how can you really do that? That would have been a shame.
next, in regards to multiple nation states on one continent- such as Europe... Europe has always been a mess throughout history. There have been dictators after dictators taking over their neighbors... fights between borders... In fact- Can you trust Europe today? they have been so volitle throughout history it is disgusting. In fact, every continent around the world that has multiple nation states living side by side has had many more bloody wars that we had here.
Which is what Lincoln was saying- once a nation splits once, how can it not split again- and again?
Below is even more from his Speech- Which is an awsome argument.
Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union." But if [the] destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
