Secession

[unionblue]

Friends,

An interesting letter that I found on one of my many searches on the net:

The letter was written by Chief Justice Marshall to a cousin of his, on the subject of State Sovereignty, showing his concerns and dangers to the Union in the plausible doctrine of States Rights.

RICHMOND, May 7, 1833.

"MY DEAR SIR:

I am much indebted to you for your pamphlet on Federal Relations, which I have read with much satisfaction. No subject, as it seems to me, is more misunderstood or more perverted. You have brought into view numerous important historical facts which, in my judgment, remove the foundation on which the Nullifiers and Seceders have erected that superstructure which overshadows our Union. You have, I think, shown satisfactorily that we never have been perfectly distinct, independent societies, sovereign in the sense in which the Nullifiers use the term. When colonies we certainly were not. We were parts of the British Empire, and although not directly connected with each other so far as respected government, we were connected in many respects, and were united to the same stock. The steps we took to effect separation were, as you have fully shown, not only revolutionary in their nature, but they were taken conjointly. Then, as now, we acted in many respects as one people. The representatives of each colony acted for all. Their resolutions proceeded from a common source, and operated on the whole mass. The army was a continental army commanded by a continental general, and supported from a continental treasury. The Declaration of Independence was made by a common government, and was made for all the States.

Everything has been mixed. Treaties made by Congress have been considered as binding all the States. Some powers have been exercised by Congress, some by the States separately. The lines were not strictly drawn. The inability of Congress to carry its legitimate powers into execution has gradually annulled those powers practically, but they always existed in theory. Independence was declared 'in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies.' In fact we have always been united in some respects, separate in others. We have acted as one people for some purposes, as distinct societies for others. I think you have shown this clearly, and in so doing have demonstrated the fallacy of the principle on which either nullification or the right of peaceful, constitutional secession is asserted.

The time is arrived when these truths must be more generally spoken, or our Union is at an end. The idea of complete sovereignty of the State converts our government into a league, and, if carried into practice, dissolves the Union.

I am, dear sir,
Yours affectionately,
J. MARSHALL

Humphrey Marshall, Esq.,
Frankfort, KY."

Now just what do you think the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court was driving at?

YMOS,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Another Southerner Heard From;

EXTRACT FROM A SPEECH ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES, Delivered in the Secession Convention of Georgia, January, 1861.

This step, [the secession of Georgia,] once taken, can never be recalled and all the baleful and withering consequences that must follow, (as you will see,) will rest on the Convention for all coming time. When we and our posterity shall see our lovely South desolated by the demon of war which this act of yours will inevitably invite and call forth; when our green fields of waving harvests shall be trodden down by the murderous soldiery and fiery car of war sweeping over our land; our temples of justice laid in ashes; all the horrors and desolations of war upon us - who but this Convention will be held responsible for it? And who but him who shall have given his vote for this UNWISE and ILL-TIMED measure (as I honestly think and believe) shall be held to strict account for this SUICIDAL ACT, by the present generation, and probably cursed and exaparated by posterity for all coming time, for the wide and desolating ruin that will inevitably follow this act you now propose to perpetuate.

Pause, I entreat you, and consider for a moment what reasons you can give that will even satisfy yourselves in calmer moments - what reasons you can give to your fellow-sufferers in the calamity that it will bring upon us? What reason can you give to the nations of earth to justify it? They will be the calm and deliberate judges in the case; and to what cause or one overt act can you name or point, on which to rest the plea of justification? WHAT RIGHT HAS THE NORTH ASSAILED? WHAT INTEREST OF THE SOUTH HAS BEEN INVADED? WHAT JUSTICE HAS BEEN DENIED? AND WHAT CLAIM FOUNDED IN JUSTICE AND RIGHT HAS BEEN WITHHELD? Can either of you today name one government act of wrong, deliberately and purposely done by the government of Washington, of which the South has a right to complain? I CHALLENGE THE ANSWER! While, on the other hand, let me show the facts, (and believe me, gentlemen, I am not here the advocate of the North; but I am here the friend, the firm friend and lover of the South and her institutions, and for this reason I speak thus plainly and faithfully, for yours, mine, and every other mans interest, the words of truth and soberness,) of which I wish you to judge, and I will only state facts which are clear and undeniable, and which now stand as records authentic in the history of our country.

When we of the South demanded the slave trade, or the importation of Africans for the cultivation of our lands, did they not yield the right for twenty years? When we asked a three-fifths representation in Congress for our slaves, was it not granted? When we asked and demanded the return of any fugitive from justice, or the recovery of those persons owing labor or allegiance, was it not incorporated in the Constitution? And again ratified and strengthened in the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850?

But do you reply, that in many instances they have violated this compact, and have not been faithful to their engagements? As individuals and local communities they may have done so; but not by the sanction of government; for that has always been true to Southern interests. Again, gentlemen, look at another fact: when we have asked that more territory should be added, that we might spread the institution of slavery, have they not yielded to our demands in giving us Louisiana, Florida and Texas, out of which four States have been carved, and ample territory for four more to be added in due time, if you by this unwise and impolitic act do not destroy this hope, and, perhaps, by it lose all, and have your last slave wrenched from you by stern military rule, as South America and Mexico were; or by the vindictive decree of a universal emancipation, which may reasonably be expected to follow?

But, again, gentlemen, what have we to gain by this proposed change of our relation to the general government? We have ALWAYS HAD CONTROL OF IT, AND CAN YET, IF WE REMAIN IN IT, AND ARE AS UNITED AS WE HAVE BEEN. WE HAVE HAD A MAJORITY OF THE PRESIDENTS CHOSEN FROM THE SOUTH; AS WELL AS THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF MOST OF THOSE CHOSEN FROM THE NORTH. WE HAVE HAD SIXTY YEARS OF SOUTHERN PRESIDENTS TO THEIR TWENTY-FOUR, THUS CONTROLLING THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. SO OF THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT, WE HAVE HAD EIGHTEEN FROM THE SOUTH, AND BUT ELEVEN FROM THE NORTH; ALTHOUGH NEARLY FOUR-FIFTHS OF THE JUDICIAL BUSINESS HAS ARISEN IN THE FREE STATES, YET A MAJORITY OF THE COURT HAS ALWAYS BEEN FROM THE SOUTH. This we have required so as to guard against any interpretation of the Constitution unfavorable to us. In like manner we have been equally watchful to guard our interests in the Legislative branch of government. In choosing the presiding Presidents (pro tem.) of the Senate, we have had twenty-four to their eleven. Speakers of the House, we have had twenty-three, and they twelve. While the majority of the Representatives from their greater population, have always been from the North, yet we have so generally secured the Speaker, because he, to a great extent, shapes and controls the legislation of the country. Nor have we had less control in every other department of the general government. Attorney Generals we have had fourteen, while the North have had but five. Foreign ministers we have had eighty-six, and they but fifty-four. While three-fourths of the business which demands diplomatic agents abroad is clearly from the Free States, from their greater commercial interests, yet we have had the principal embassies, so as to secure the world markets for our cotton, tobacco and sugar on the best possible terms.

We have had a vast majority of the higher offices of both army and navy, while a larger proportion of the soldiers and sailors were drawn from the North. Equally so of Clerks, Auditors and Comptrollers filling the Executive department; the records show for the last fifty years, that of the three thousand employed, we have had more than two-thirds of the same, while we have but one-third of the white population of the Republic.

Again, look at another item, and one, be assured, in which we have a great and vital interest; IT IS THAT OF REVENUE, OR MEANS OF SUPPORTING GOVERNMENT. FROM OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS, WE LEARN THAT A FRACTION OVER THREE-FOURTHS OF THE REVENUE COLLECTED FOR THE SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT HAS UNIFORMLY BEEN RAISED FROM THE NORTH. PAUSE, NOW, WHILE YOU CAN, GENTLEMEN, AND CONTEMPLATE CAREFULLY AND CANDIDLY THESE IMPORTANT ITEMS. LOOK AT ANOTHER NECESSARY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, AND LEARN FROM STERN STATISTICAL FACTS HOW MATTERS STAND IN THAT DEPARTMENT. I MEAN THE MAIL AND POST-OFFICE PRIVILEGES THAT WE NOW ENJOY UNDER THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT, AS IT HAS BEEN FOR YEARS PAST. THE EXPENSE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE MAIL IN THE FREE STATES WAS, BY THE REPORT OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL FOR THE YEAR 1860, A LITTLE OVER $13,000,004, WHILE THE INCOME WAS $19,000,000. BUT IN THE SLAVE STATES, THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE MAIL WAS $14, 716,000, WHILE THE REVENUE FROM THE SAME WAS $8,001,026, LEAVING A DEFICIT OF $6,115,734, TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE NORTH FOR OUR ACCOMMODATION, AND WITHOUT IT WE MUST HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY CUT OFF FROM THIS MOST ESSENTIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

Leaving out of view, for the present, the countless millions of dollars you must expend in a war with the North; with tens of thousands of your sons and brothers slain in battle, and offered up as sacrifices upon the altar of your ambition,-and for what, we ask again? Is it for the overthrow of the American government, established by our common ancestry, cemented and built up by their sweat and blood, and founded on the broad principles of Right, Justice, and Humanity? And, as such, I must declare here, as I have often done before, and which has been repeated by the greatest and wisest of statesmen and patriots in this and other lands, that it is the best and freest governement-the most equal in its rights-the most just in its decisions-the most lenient in its measures, and the most inspiring in its principles to elevate the race of men, that the sun of heaven ever shone upon.

Now, for you to attempt to overthrow such a government as this, under which we have lived for more than three quarters of a century-in which we have gained our wealth, our standing as a nation, our domestic safety while elements of peril are around us, with peace and tranquillity accompanied with unbounded prosperity and rights UNASSAILED-IS THE HEIGHT OF MADNESS, FOLLY AND WICKEDNESS, TO WHICH I CAN NEITHER LEND MY SANCTION NOR MY VOTE.

Now, what was the South seceding about? The Tariff? The Fugitive Slave Act? Big government?

I myself, find it extremely hard to argue with the man.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on June 02, 2004)

[eopfrank]

Neil,
Thanks for that. You are right.. That makes a lot of sense, and I have been asking myself that same thought since I have been interested in The Civil War. I guess the main reason for them was that their way of life was being threatened. The South and the North had two very different cultures. The Souths' was more like old Europe; aristocrats and such. They were born with and used to the Slave-Master relationship- that relationship was understood and common practice all over the free world in the 18th century. People of the 19th century were becoming more enlightened. They didn't want their culture-The old South-The Old Dominion- gone with the wind; just like the movie. That book was written by a veteran of the war. But not to get off topic, I guess the threat of losing their culture was worth dying for. I guess it's not that impossible to believe- I mean it did happen, right?

-Frank

[unionblue]

Frank,

I sincerely believe that there is much in what you say, that many in the South were fighting for a way of life. A way they had known all of their lives and could not see any wrong in it.

Lincoln said if he had been born and raised in the South he would probably feel the same way. It is hard to view a 19th century life style with 21st century eyes, so that is why I tend to let those who lived in that time do the talking.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Thea,

In reference to your post above (April 3, 2004, 11:29PM), I must say I grow weary of hearing about how the North and Lincoln was so quick to call up 75,000 volunteers and that somehow the South was an innocent bystander not doing a thing to cause such a reaction.

By early spring 1861 South Carolina had 5,000 men under arms, most of them besieging Ft. Sumter (with a garrison of 70 men as we all remember). Other Southern states were not far behind. The Confederate Congress in FEBRUARY 1861 created a War Department, and Jeff Davis, with his previous experience as a West Point graduate, a combat veteran of the Mexican War, and a former secretary of war in the US government, used his expertise to speed Southern mobilization in 1861.

On MARCH 6, 1861, the Confederate Congress authorized an army of 100,000 volunteers for 12 months. By the time Lincoln called for 75,000 men after the fall of Ft. Sumter (April 15, 1861), the South's mobilization had already enrolled 60,000 men. The North started later than the South to raise an army.

One should also remember that the South's military schools had turned out a large number of graduates who provided the Confederacy with a nucleus of trained officers. In 1860 of the eight military 'colleges' in the entire country seven were in the slave states.

We also hear often the idea that the South only wanted to be left alone and did not wish to invade the North for any reason. Many Southerners scorned the notion of 'sitting down and waiting' for the Federals to attack. "the idea of waiting for blows, instead of inflicting them, is altogether unsuited to the genius of our people," declared the Richmond Examiner. "The aggressive policy is the truly defensive one. A column pushed forward into Ohio or Pennsylvania is worth more to us, as a defensive measure, than a whole tier of seacoast batteries from Norfolk to the Rio Grande." The southern press clamored for an advance against Washington in the same tone that northern newspapers cried On to Richmond.

Just thought the other side of the story ought to be told.

YMOS,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on June 15, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

There is nothing inherently aggressive about maintaining an army of any size. It's what you do with it that counts.

Regardless of the posturing of some journalists who fancied themselves as armchair generals, the plain fact is that the Confederate States government did not aspire to the conquest of the United States of America. The United States government did, however, aspire to the conquest of the Confederate States of America. When you come to weigh up the relative aggression of the two sides I really do not see how you can ignore this fundamental distinction.

The firing on Sumter was a limited military response to a limited military incursion on C.S. territory. (Whether it was wise is, of course, another matter.)

Regards,

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

Sorry, my stubborn English friend, but as Thea has said on another thread, 'that dog won't hunt.'

Prior to the war and right up until its beginning, there were threats, serious threats, that the South wished to expand its territory, even at the expense of the North.

And when measuring the size of one's forces, one must look at capabilities not just stated intentions. A member of the Confederate cabinet made the statement that he once foresaw Confederate troops in Boston, let alone Washington.

And let us not just concern ourselves with words, how about actual acts of invasion? What was Kentucky? Even though the state declared that it was neutral, it did not matter, even when the North held off and did not enter into that state, until after the South broke its word and moved North. What about New Mexico? And why invade the North in an attempt to get England and France to recognize your attempt at nationhood if you have no aspirations to invade the North? What was Early's attempt on Washington? Why were there plans to take Washington by force by Southern factions even before the war?

There was much pressure in and outside the Confederate government to invade the North and take territory if you look hard enough and research it.

And I must disagree on your first statement. There is something inherently aggressive about maintaining an army. I remember when the 10th Mountain Division, Light Infantry (US) was formed and moved to upstate New York, 35 miles from the Canadian border, 10,500 men. The Canadian Army, not having anything larger than a brigade since WWII felt the need to create their first infantry division and station it opposite the border of the 10th Mountain Division! And this in response to a supposed ally! Capabilities, not stated intent, drove the nation of Canada to create this counter force.

Stated intentions are not what you plan on, Bill, when drawing up your own plans. How much nicer it would be for the taxpayers and the military planners if we could take the word of our potential foes when they promised not to attack or build nuclear weapons. Just can't play that way, then or now. One Pearl Harbor is enough in anyone's history.

And Bill, there was no Confederate States of America, only a region of the country in rebellion. One cannot invade his own country, but one can enforce the laws and put down rebellion.

Until that time,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on June 15, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

Dear Neil,

I’m not familiar with the phrase “That dog won’t hunt” although, in context, I can guess at its meaning. I’ll respond with a bit of English idiom: “You must be having a laugh, mate!”

I think you’re trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you argue that the Lincoln administration fought the war for a great and undying principle: the preservation of the Union. But on the other you seem to suggest – albeit obliquely – that war might have been avoided but for Southern aggression, Southern armies, Southern plans for New Mexico. Which is it to be? If you want the North to enjoy the kudos of having fought for this supposedly great and eternal principle, you have to accept that war was inevitable whatever the Confederate government did. In choosing to try to preserve the Union by force the Lincoln administration instigated war. It’s as simple as that.

And if Lincoln’s unswerving determination to preserve the Union, enforce the laws…call it what you will…made war inevitable, it is simple justice to the intelligence of the cabinet in Montgomery/Richmond to say that they realised this. And so the decision to raise the largest Confederate armies possible was but the rational anticipation of what actually came to pass: Northern invasion of C.S. territory.

But if the Confederacy fought an essentially defensive war – their aim being to resist until the Northern will to prosecute the war was exhausted – that did not preclude them from temporary invasion of U.S. territory. It’s a legitimate tactic of war, after all. But nobody can seriously suggest that they aimed to conquer the United States, to obliterate it from the map and absorb it into the Confederacy. New Mexico is a different matter…the annexation of territory is a common consequence of war without either combatant nation ceasing to exist. Look at the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine: Germany annexed them in 1870; France got them back in 1918; Germany took them again in 1940; they returned to France in 1945. It’s got nothing to do with which side was the aggressor: as I said, it’s just a natural consequence of war.

As far as Kentucky is concerned, both governments had to weigh up both military and political factors in deciding how long to observe that state’s neutrality. That both governments would have breached its borders whenever it seemed expedient is beyond reasonable doubt.

The Canadian-American situation you described is interesting. (What the hell were your lot thinking about?) But it wasn’t the simple existence of the 10th Mounted Division which caused Canadian disquiet: it was the placing of it 35 miles from the border. To argue that the Confederacy should have avoided raising large armies in case it provoked Washington is perhaps a little disingenuous, given the certainty of U.S. invasion.

Yours stubbornly,

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

Excellent! Not only your detailed response and reasoning, but your excellent English phrase! Thank you for sharing!

I think that you are correct in your first paragraph in which you make the assumption that I am trying to have it both ways. Make no mistake, I am! Why is it the North, the same section of the country that for over sixty years, went with compromise, agreements and backed down time after time when the South had a temper tantrum, gets hit with being the bad guy and the South is some poor kind of unsuspecting bystander that gets mugged by the evil North?

Here's another old saying here in the US, "It takes two to tango." I do believe the war was inevitable because the South was stubborn to the point of suicide over it's favorite institution, that no amount of compromise or give and take on the North's part would have satisfied those men in the South who were determined to destroy the Union over it. The South, not Lincoln, decided upon war when it refused to abide by the results of a lawful election and then fired upon a federal fort, an act of war in itself, never mind all the other acts of war before that act (theft of arms, mints, ships, forts, etc.).

And Bill, the South wanted to expand its territory, to the West and to the South, even to Cuba and South America, making it one, great slave empire. Not a theory but a historical fact. Even when Mexico lost over half its territory in the Mexican-American War, there were those who represented the South who wanted ALL of Mexico, a war that U.S. Grant called, "one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation."

And did the South intend to just completely wage a defensive war? No. It tried to expand its gains but failed and are you aware that many men in Lee's army during the Antietam campaign did not cross into Northern territory as they felt this violated the idea the South only wished to defend itself and not invade the North? I agree with you that invading the North and threatening Washington are valid military concepts and make sense. But if the South had captured Washington or Harrisburg, would they have given them back? If they could have held onto Maryland, would they have given it back?

Both sides had promised to leave Kentucky alone, who invaded it with the idea of keeping that state for themselves? Could the South take over the entire North? I agree with you that this prospect was unlikely, but invasion is invasion, no matter what your reason.

As for the 10th Mountain Division and what 'our lot' was thinking about, you got me there. I was stationed there my last two years in the Army and all I heard was that the place was a great winter warfare training center as it got colder than Alaska due to the winds and lake effect snows off of the Great Lakes (which I can personally attest too!). Also this was part of the Department of Defense's policy to try and locate military installations in areas of the country that would help stimulate and improve local economies which were depressed. Watertown NY was certainly depressing when I got there in 1989, a small, former mill town that was dying out until 10,500 new consumers walked in.

As for the prospect of invading Canada because it was only 35 miles away, we often did on the weekends as it had more to offer than the town of Watertown, trust me! A lot of times I had to help soldiers to their bunks after a weekend of 'pub crawling' up North!

Until that time,
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

Thanks for your response – entertaining and interesting, as ever.

A.P.Hillbilly’s favourite author, Mr Pratchett, has a character in one of his books say the following:-

“ ‘Do you think it’s possible for an entire nation to be insane?' ... ‘Not the people, the nation,’ said Vimes... ‘You take a bunch of people who don’t seem any different from you or me, but when you add them all together you get this sort of huge raving maniac with borders and an anthem.’ ”

I sometimes feel like this about ante-bellum America. Irrationality had held sway in both sections for so long that, by the time of the war, logic had had a nervous breakdown and been placed in a sanatorium. My own favourite example is the creation of the state of West Virginia: it is absolutely impossible for a state to leave the Union, but is perfectly possible for a group of counties to leave a state. (Best not to ask how.) And while it is impossible for states to leave the Union, if they try to do so they somehow cease to be states and have to apply for readmission after a period of military government. Those two examples come to my mind because I see things from a Rebel perspective, but it is perfectly possible to trace irrationality in the Confederacy as well.

This all came back to me while mulling over the topic of Confederate invasion of the U.S.A. As I understand it, the argument is that the U.S.A. did not invade the South because it was all one country and you can’t invade yourself. And so it wasn’t a war of conquest, the destruction of the Southern infrastructure didn’t qualify as an act of aggression and – all in all – the Northern invasion of the South is an official non-event. Any yet, curiously enough, those all too brief incursions by Southern armies into Northern territory seem to be regarded as anything but non-events. They are official “invasions”. Even though your own premise is that C.S. soldiers were actually still U.S. citizens. And so incapable of invading their own country.

It’s logic, Jim – but not as we know it.

I feel a similar mental haziness and the need for a stiff drink when considering the alleged expansionism of the pre-war South. You state that “the South wanted to expand its territory, to the West and to the South, even to Cuba and South America, making it one, great slave empire. Not a theory but a historical fact.” But at this time the South was simply a region of the U.S.A., a miscellaneous collection of states. Yet you appear to have given it its own, distinct foreign policy. You talk about the expansion of the South’s “territory” when, surely, what you mean is “United States territory”. In short, you accuse it of the sins of independent existence whilst denying it the right to the same. You’re having it both ways again, you naughty Yankee!

Cheers,

Bill