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.
In my opinion, the oath was a covenant to insure that the officeholder performed in the best interests of the United States. I don't think you can say that ceding Federal property to the Confederates is operating in the best interests of the Union.
Bill, I think the oath is very simple and clear. A president's mandate is to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution. That constitution gives him no power to declare secession void or to force a political point on any of the states with the cannon and steel.
They had to prove they were a sovereign nation. There could only be one possible outcome; War.
Only if the president puts union over Constitution.
The only justification for it had nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with the ageless doctrine of might-makes-right.
"To make hollow laughing sound....for the people...by the people....heh..yeah, right...pull the other one, it hath got bells on."
??? Aphillbilly, I was rather certain you voted and that your vote counted every bit as much as mine. Did you somehow renounce your citizenship and thus your obligation to vote?
We ain't perfect, but we are a **** site better than anyplace else I can think of.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
"The only justification for it had nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with the ageless doctrine of might-makes-right." Hal, I suppose President Lincoln never read what I've cut & pasted below and wasn't obligated to uphold it? Not! If the South had won, might would have made right and you wouldn't be complaining correct?
United States Constitution: Section 10. States prohibited from the exercise of certain powers.
1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
2. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
3. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in a war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Please, I beg to differ, I do not advocate a 'might-makes-right' position. I advocate taking responsibility for your actions.
Too much historical evidence points to the fact the South knew that any attempt at 'secession' or rebellion would not be in a peaceful manner. They preceded anyway in spite of the fact the very real possibility of war and loss of life would occur. In South Carolina, acts of violence were barely contained or avoided, long before that State even declared secession. Violence and war were made almost a certainty because of an unwillingness to compromise or seek legal redress with the Supreme Court or within the Congress. The dogs of war were let lose by South Carolina and the rest of the Deep South.
Nor do I think the label 'forced unionists' should be put to all those who disagree with the position you and others advocate. Anymore than a label of 'suicidal secessionts' or, with a bow to William, 'delusional self-determinationists.' It would be an unfair label and attempt to neatly catagorize such arguments, put them in a safe file box, and ignore them. That is not debate. That is judgment. And this, just my observation and own opinion.
William, I tend to agree that America and England are separated by a common language. I have seen your comparison of Norway and Sweden, but I do not feel it should be considered a 'successful model' of peaceful separation. I do not see all the factors that contributed to the Civil War of 1861 to be the same as the separation of 1905. Would you be able to tell me what the major differences were between these two examples or do you contend exactly the same conditions and problems are mirrored by the two?
All-in-all, I think Doug is presenting the most logical and historically correct reason for war after secession and I feel I am getting closer to buying him that dinner one day!
YMOS,
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
Too much historical evidence points to the fact the South knew that any attempt at 'secession' or rebellion would not be in a peaceful manner. They preceded anyway in spite of the fact the very real possibility of war and loss of life would occur. In South Carolina, acts of violence were barely contained or avoided, long before that State even declared secession. Violence and war were made almost a certainty because of an unwillingness to compromise or seek legal redress with the Supreme Court or within the Congress. The dogs of war were let lose by South Carolina and the rest of the Deep South.
Neil, then why is it that Lincoln never cited this "violence" as grounds for invasion, but instead cited the collection of taxes and occupation of federal facilities as justification to wage war on those seeking to withdraw from a voluntary union?
And why is it incumbent on those withdrawing on their on authority, to appeal to the authority of a government they no longer are associated with? Why wouldn't the Executive of that government appeal to his own Supreme Court regarding its legalities instead of taking it upon himself to interpret the Constitution and inflict a war of subjugation of his own accord?
"Neil, then why is it that Lincoln never cited this "violence" as grounds for invasion, but instead cited the collection of taxes and occupation of federal facilities as justification to wage war on those seeking to withdraw from a voluntary union?"
Hal, could you cite Lincoln in his demand for taxes as a issue after the Ft Sumter was fired upon?
"And why is it incumbent on those withdrawing on their on authority, to appeal to the authority of a government they no longer are associated with? Why wouldn't the Executive of that government appeal to his own Supreme Court regarding its legalities instead of taking it upon himself to interpret the Constitution and inflict a war of subjugation of his own accord? "
I think it's fairly clear what President Lincoln was responding to in the Constitution, feel free to look below as I've posted it again.
United States Constitution: Section 10. States prohibited from the exercise of certain powers.
1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
2. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
3. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in a war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
It was arrogance or simple mindedness that led S.C. to assume the Federal Gov't would accept that states simple assertion that it was an independent nation.
In any case, all thinking and astute observers, North and South, knew that if the South continued to assert it's complete separation from the U.S.A, there would be war.
The leaders of the Confederacy, if not its' citizens, were well aware that continued insistence on complete independence, would result in war and even Davis knew the consequences of being the first to fire the first shot to start that war, but he and his gov't, with coolness and great deliberation chose war.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
