Was War Necessary After Secession?

[hawglips]

Neil: The fact of the matter is, Hal, and again, its just my opinion, the states DID know when they signed the Constitution that they were trying to form 'a more perfect Union' and that they WERE giving up certain rights originally theirs to achieve that Union. These men were not stupid or blind (maybe a bit drunk, as the drinking at the time would have killed a mule) but, as it has been stated, the cream of their colonies. The signing of that document was done with all eyes open and you should not be surprised at the number of signatures on it.

Neil, I agree 100% with this opinion of yours. That is actually bordering on irrefutable fact, I would opine.

But, that answer does not address my question at all. Giving up certain rights is one thing -- bowing to the will of the federal majority on all matters, including matters outside of those specifically delegated to that government, whether they be injurious and detrimental to a State's interests or not; with the Feds' bayonets and cannon being the supreme judge on the question -- is something quite different.

Had they known there was a hidden Hotel California clause -- you can check in any time you like, but you can never leave -- and that the Federal government's "might makes right" provision replaced that of State sovereignty, I am quite certain none of the States would have ratified it.

Hal

[thea_447]

Bravo, Hal! Have I welcomed you to the board? I'm sure I haven't.
WELCOME!

YMOS,

[thea_447]

By the way, earlier Neil had stated:
" Bill, I do not go with the idea that 1 percent of Southerners were evil. I suggest mainly that they had a way of life that made them money and a good living and was not considered evil or illegal, in their own opinions, so why should they change?" Why do you turn a blind eye to wage slaves in the North? When did that change? Did it take a war, ruin an entire section of the country and kill hundreds of thousands of people for that to happen?

And like Tommy, I believe that the North, "in freeing a race, enslaved an entire nation."

I'm sure it is easier to view the South as an oppressor than view the North in the same light, but in all fairness, and in hindsight, wouldn't it be more objective to look realistically at what the North was up to? They wanted railroads. They got them, with Southern money. They wanted to control all the ports,exports and imports, along with the tariffs. Where was the money to come from for all their projects? Bingo! The South.........

Traitors or patriots: I suppose it depends on where you hang your hat.

[unionblue]

Thea,

Let me reverse the question. Why do you turn a blind eye to slavery in the South? Or do you? And I do not turn a 'blind eye' to wage slaves, which I consider a very slippery, contrived reason, a moral 'smoke screen' if you will (at the time of the war) to betray your country for an institution of actual slavery. And, if these poor 'wage slaves' were so tied down by circumstance to poor paying jobs, how the heck did any of those poor Irish immigrants ever get shed of their service to English landowners and get to America? Or the Germans or Dutch or anyone? True, not all made the choice to chance a new life in America, but it was their choice and they had a choice, to move or stay that slaves, true slaves, in the South did not have. Read the following from the book, Without Consent Or Contract: The Rise And Fall Of American Slavery, by Fogel, page 395 in the section titled, 'Afterword: The Moral Problem of Slavery' and the section concerning 'wage slaves.'

"The decisive economic advantage of free labor systems was not what had been achieved but what was unfolding: the opportunity for laboring classes to improve their lot as a consequence of rapid technological progress. Free labor systems provided two routes to such improvement. One was individual economic and social mobility, the opportunity of individuals to rise on the economic ladder by acquiring land, labor skills, and other forms of capital. A critical aspect of the upward movement was geographic mobility, the freedom of individuals to migrate to those places where their opportunities were greatest. Millions of impoverished Europeans were able to escape from rigid class structures and poverty of their homelands to find opportunity in the New World. Recent cliometric studies have demonstrated that both international and interstate migrants generally improved their economic positions rapidly after entering new communities. There was also upward economic mobility among those who stayed put. Over their lifetimes persons from lower classes tended to rise in the occupational hierarchy and to improve their standard in the distribution of wealth. Moreover, whether their parents were native born or foreign born, sons from lower-class families were generally better off than their fathers, having not only more wealth but generally standing higher in the hierarchy of occupations than their fathers stood."

I truly consider the war a case of Southern suicide brought on by poor timing and poor, arrogant judgment by the men in power, typically large slave-owning politicians. It is my own opinion, of course, but from what I have read about the make-up of State governments and legislatures of the time, the fact comes up again and again, that these were precisely the type of men who voted FOR secession and over the issue of slavery.

I am looking at what you consider realistically at what the North was up to. They wanted railroads. They got them. But not just with Southern money. That's too simple and just wrong. Thanks to Tommy, I have had to research some things about the Transcontinentail Railroad and I have found out some pretty amazing facts. Yes, the government gave out land grants and loan considerations, etc., but the men who built it had to raise money of their own to meet finance requirements and meet deadlines or lose everything they had invested. Time and time again, they had to raise money themselves to get the thing built. Every time you make the statement the South paid for it all is just not true.

Again with the tariffs! And again I say, the tariff was the making of both the North and the South, the East and the West, right up until the Civil War. Please find me one battle cry of troops charging their enemies, on either side, crying out, "For the Tariff!" or "Down with the Tariff!" And once again I say, the Morril Tariff was approved before Lincoln ever got into office.

And did Lincoln ask for higher tariffs after he got into office? I'll let you in on a very well known, open, undisbuted secret, Thea. OF COURSE HE DID! He had to finance a major war that embraced the length and breadth of the entire nation, an area bigger than most countries in Europe! The nation went from a 16,000 man army to 2 million men, along with the arms, ammunition, cannon, wagons, tents, ships, animals, feed, food and the thousand other things needed by a 'modern' army of the time. No other such undertaking would be attempted by this country until the rearming the nation for WWII! How was it all supposed to be paid for? Donations? Why is everyone surprised at the fact that tariffs went UP after the start of the war? Buying powder, saltpeter and guns from England wasn't on the cheap, and isn't that why the South had a hard time keeping its army in supplies as there was that nasty thing called cash required for arms and supplies from that very same English supplier? And what about all them blockade runners? They were donated for free, of course! NOT!

The war was NOT about the tariff. (Your surprised I said that, aren't you?)

And yes, Thea, with all the emotion and rhetoric stripped away, it is all about timing, judgment, and where you hang your hat. It don't always make it right, it's just a harsh fact of history.

Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 15, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 15, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 15, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 15, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 15, 2003)

[unionblue]

Hal,

I am of the opinion that we may both be splitting hairs here. One of the rights the States gave up was the idea of leaving the Union, that they were striving to create 'a more perfect union.'

I have an example I would like to give to you that the idea that a State could leave the Union was incorrect or was assumed after the signing of the Constitution.

During the nullification crisis with South Carolina, Madison, the recognized authority on the Constitution and its workings, had this to say on the subject of secession.

"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. At this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired against their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution ^ laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!"

Madison also states:

An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, til of late been palatable anywhere, and nowhere else so than where it is now most contended for."

Again, Hal, I do not think the idea that one could NOT leave the Union without the consent of all was not a surprise to anyone, even at the Constitutional Convention. Madison was there at the convention and was recognized throughout the nation as THE expert on the Constitution and its intent and meaning.

The boys knew they were building something new and lasting, not something they could drop out of on a whim.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[rivrrat]

My friends, this is another thread that I have watched silently for a long time while the argument developed. Now I am ready to add my 2 Cents (Confederate) worth. Here is my humble opinion on the matter.

First I think the question could be better stated as, “Was war inevitable after succession?” I think that this more accurately frames the debate here.

Those of you who know me are probably thinking, “Here comes another reference to the Trans-Mississippi.” Well far be it from me to disappoint. The main contention of the Rebs in this debate is that the Southern States wished only to assert their rights and go peacefully on their way. I would humbly submit that this contention is wrong to the point of fantasy and suggest that a look to the west offers ample proof of this proposition.

The passage of the Kansas Nebraska Act in 1854 precipitated a nasty little war along the border between Kansas and Missouri, which many see as the beginning of the (insert your favorite name for the war here). Both sides of the Slavery question decided early on that Kansas would enter the Union on their particular side. The mechanism for carrying out this determination was the various “immigrant aid societies.” Although those associated with the North or “free state” forces are the best known, think the founding of Lawrence Kansas, John Brown and “Beecher’s Bibles,” the Southern or “slave state” forces were very active as well. For example Atchison Kansas was founded by pro slavery Senator David Atchison of Missouri, one company of volunteers came from South Carolina and carried a Palm Tree flag into battle, the first proposed constitution for Kansas was pro-slavery and actually passed in an election although there were more votes cast that there were voters in the territory.

Both sides espoused the use of force and used it pretty liberally. Check out the Marais des Cygnes and the Pottawamie “massacres.” There is dispute as to witch side first used violence and it is a close race, but it seems pretty clear that the pro-slavery side began the use of force. This does not seem to square with the idea of a peace loving South wishing only to go its own way and be left alone.

Fast forward, January 1861 Pro-southern Governor Claiborne F. Jackson calls a convention in Jefferson City Missouri to draft and ratify Articles of Succession removing Missouri from the Union. The convention refused to vote for succession. Despite this Governor Jackson continued to work toward including Missouri in the Confederacy, he authorized the establishment of overtly pro-southern militia units, which were armed with weapons seized from Federal arsenals and provided by the Confederate government. There were plans to seize the Federal Arsenal at St. Louis, which were frustrated by the aggressive actions of Capt. (later Gen.) Nathaniel Lyon by capturing and disarming the militia at Camp Jackson. This again does not seem to indicate Confederate Government dedicated to the peaceful withdrawal from the Union.

There is ample evidence that many in the Confederacy held imperial ambitions, seeing the Confederacy as expanding not only to the west, but also to Cuba, South and Central America. America and its people had come to a point where visions, two philosophies were unable to reconcile with each other. There was going to be a war sooner or later succession was just the flash point.

It is not my intention here to cast the Confederacy as the sole villain starting the war. There is plenty of blame to go around, another lesson from the study of the Trans-Mississippi and other border states. Both sides were itching for war and by the time of Lincoln’s election there was no doubt that it would happen. I am as distressed as anyone at the current trend of casting the South as some sort of 19th century Nazi government and the North as a bunch or pure saints, neither is true. However, I am also distressed at the Neo-Confederate response of trying to cast the Union, particularly President Lincoln, as the incarnation of essential evil and the South as a bunch of pure saints, neither is true.

[unionblue]

Doug,

Your point is well taken and the trouble with Kansas is a perfect example of the hopelessness of a peaceable secession, as most will admit this was a mini-prelude to the Civil War to come.

It does seem there is blame enough to go around for many of the problems the nation was having at the time. But I must keep my own opinion that the South had some very bad timing and some very bad input for the choices it made after Lincoln's election.

As for the current trend to 'demonize' our 16th President, I am of the opinion he is taking so much heat today, not for his actions per see 140 years ago, but serving as an example with those who have a modern anti-government stance today. Old Abe can't defend himself, so why not lump him into a modern debate and poster child for big government today?

YMOS,
Unionblue

Unionblue

[unionblue]

Friends,

A few more reasons, facts, observations on why slavery was NOT just going to go quietly away in this country.

I have heard the observation that slavery would have passed away even earlier if only Eli Whittney had not invented the cotton gin.

The fact of the matter is this assumption is based on erroneous but widely cited estimates of slave imports for the period from 1790 to 1810. Revised estimates show that far from declining, slave imports were higher in this period than in any previous 20-year period of US history. There were, in fact, almost as many Africans brought into the US during the 30 years form 1780 to 1810 as during the previous 160 years.

Most of the slaves during this period were employed in the labor of three principal plantation crops, tabacco, rice, and indigo as cotton had not yet emerged as a major southern crop. Not until the begining of the nineteenth century, after the cotton gin lowered the cost of fiber. So we see the demand for slaves for other cash crops suitable to slave labor was still high, even though cotton was not yet a large, slave driven crop. That would come latter.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[thea_447]

"There were, in fact, almost as many Africans brought into the
US during the 30 years from 1780 to 1810 as during the previous 160
years."

I concur with that part of your statement, Neil, and who, pray tell, brought them to this country, was it Southerners? No. So, who turned the first profit?
Also, at this time, weren't Northerners still using some slave labor themselves? Check this out: http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/5/hs511a.htm

I'll write more later but right now I have an errand to run. I want to leave you with a bit of levity though.

My husband, Charlie, just emailed me this from his office:

"I walked in the office this morning Reagan and Duane said the usual "grunt mornings" and Duane said "got a new vehicle?".
"No I am getting my oil changed."
He said, "is that a loaner?"
I said "sort of, it's my wife's truck." (We still call it a truck, although it's an SUV. I drove a truck for 11 years because I liked being way up off the ground; only switched because I'd only put 22,000 miles on it and Charlie said the parts would be obsolete before I ever wore it out..still love driving a five speed though...<grin>)

He said, "you mean your wife loans you her car, plus gets the oil changed in your truck?"

He said, "I can't get my wife to get her own oil changed."

I said "I bet your wife don't cook breakfast either."

He said, "I guess that's what I get for marrying a yankee."
(Duane's from Rhode Island but he is a solid Southerner now, in thought, word and deed. <big>)

(Reminder to Thea: Remember to thank Charlie for not telling them that my idea of cooking breakfast is to slap frozen waffles and pre-cooked bacon in the microwave!)Personally I don't eat that stuff.. My idea of a good nutritious breakfast is an olive sandwich! Now you know where my acidic tongue comes from!

[hawglips]

Neil, it is interesting that you quote the man who in the Virginia Resolution declared that the people speaking through their state legislatures had the authority to judge the legitimacy of federal actions. That doesn’t sound to me like he supported the doctrine that Federal might makes right, and that the States somehow secretly handed over their sovereignty to the Federal government’s will upon ratifying the Constitution.

At that time he said, "The States, then, being parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated, and consequently that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition." (James Madison)

“[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”( James Madison)

In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

I don’t believe Madison would have supported the Federal coercion might-makes-right doctrine.

Nathaniel Macon, long time NC Congressman and Senator, and elected to the Continental Congress, echoed the belief of many of his compatriots in the right of secession. "I have never believed a State could nullify and stay in the Union," he said, "but have always believed that a State might secede when she pleased, provided she would pay her proportion of the public debt; and this right I have considered the best safeguard to public liberty and to public justice that could be desired."

NC would not have ratified the Constitution under the Hotel California Federal Coercion plan.

Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts urged the dissolution of the Union over the admission of Louisiana in 1803. And Thomas Pickering of MA summed up the bitter feelings of defiant New Englanders after “Mr. Madison’s war, that there was “no magic in the sound of Union. If the great objects of Union are utterly abandoned…let the Union be severed.” MA, CN and NH wouldn’t even send militia to fight in the war.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire would not have ratified the Constitution under the Hotel California Federal Coercion might-makes-right plan.

In ratifying the Constitution, New York expressed her sovereignty in the following manner: "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness."

New York would not have ratified the Constitution had they known about the hidden Hotel California Federal Coercion plan.

The Kentucky resolution stated, "That the several States comprising the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government, but that by compact under the style and title of a constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government, for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded, as a State, and is an integral party; that this government created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since this would have made its discretion and not the Constitution the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

Kentucky would not have joined up had they known they surrendered their sovereignty to the will of the Federal government and that will would be forced down their throats, with no recourse.

And since the Virginian Thomas Jefferson authored that resolution, it is clear Virginia would not have ratified such a document as the one you are suggesting was ratified.
In 1839 John Quincy Adams, in an address before the New York Historical Association, declared: "We may admit the same right has vested in the people of every State of the Union with reference to the general government, which was exercised by the people of the united colonies with reference to the supreme head of the British Empire, of which they formed a part, and under these limitations have the people of each State in the Union a right to secede from the Confederate Union itself."
He also said, “I love the Union as I love my wife. But if my wife should ask for and insist upon a separation, she would have it though it broke my heart.”

In 1827, the legislature resolved that any increase in the tariff was inexpedient and that "whenever a system is adopted by the General Government which does not equally conserve the interests of all, then the right rests with any State or States to question whether the benefits of the union are not more than counterbalanced by its evils."

William Rawle, Ben Franklin's buddy and George Washington’s first choice to be the first Attorney General of the United States said, "The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state....To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."

St. George Tucker, Revolutionary War veteran, scholar and lawyer said, "Nor must we forget that solemn declaration to which every one of the confederate states...that whenever any form of government is destructive of the ends of its institution, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. Consequently whenever the people of any state, or number of states, discovered the inadequacy of the first form of federal government to promote or preserve their independence, happiness, and union, they only exerted that natural right in rejecting it, and adopting another...And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties."

No way would the Constitution have been ratified had they thought they had no way out, and that their rights were handed over to the will of the Federal majority under the penalty of death.

The war was tragically unnecessary and a mockery of all the Union stood for.

Hal


(Message edited by hawglips on November 18, 2003)