Was War Necessary After Secession? - Page 7

unionblue · #61 11-19-2003, 12:05 AM

Hal,

I compliment you on an excellent post, well written and thought out. I will do my level best to return the compliment to try and convince you that the war was NOT 'tragically unnecessary and a mockery of all the Union stood for.'

On your first point, I feel that I must point out that when you try and use the Virginia Resolution as an argument, you should keep it in context of what it was for.

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were written to make the case to other State legislatures to join collectively countering the Federalist's Alien and Sedition Acts, which--in direct violation of the Bill of Rights--were specifically intended to muzzle and suppress Republican opposition to the Federalists. The Virginia Resolutions Against the Alien and Sedition Acts, December 21, 1798, stated the obligation of the State to "interpose", not to secede. Nowhere in the document is secession suggested as a remedy; in fact, sentiments are expressed completely antithetical to secession:

"...the good people of this Commonwealth having ever felt and continuing to feel the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states, the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all, and the most scrupulous fidelity to that Constitution which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness..."

As a further example, the final approved Kentucky Resolution, signed by the Governor on November 17, 1798, makes it clear that Kentucky, as part of the federal compact, "will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does at the same time declare that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt from what quarter soever offered to violate that compact..." This language in the official Resolution was NOT Jefferson's. In fact, comparison of Jefferson's final draft submission and the Resolution the Kentucky Legislature passed will reveal they are quite different documents. Drafts, it must be noted, are not final documents, but are thought in evolution that are not yet fully formed, or even contain thoughts and ideas which may be rejected.

A key fact often overlooked is that although the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures passed their respective Resolutions, they failed in their objective as other States rejected the Resolutions. As Madison explained:

"Their greatest objection, with a few undefined complaints of the spirit and character of the Resolutions, was directed against the assumed authority of a State legislature to declare a law of the US to be unconstitutional, which they considered an unwarrantable interference with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the US. Had the Resolutions been regarded as avowing and maintaining a right in an individual State to arrest by force the execution of a law of the US it must be presumed that it would have been a pointed and conspicuous object of their denunciation,"

Twenty-five years later after the Resolutions, Jefferson imprudently corresponded with William Giles, Republican Senator from Virginia. In private correspondence that was clearly labeled "not intended for the public eye", he used words suggesting dissolution of the Union. Madison would counsel against using these words in Jefferson's proposed "Declaration and Protest" against Federal internal improvements. Madison persuaded Jefferson in late December, 1825, to suppress its official publication; however, Jefferson sent his letter to Giles only two days after sending the "Declaration and Protest" to Madison for his review. It was too late for Jefferson to withdraw his letter and Giles published Jefferson's private letter to buttress and self-servingly justify his own opposition to the tariff with his constituents, a tariff that Jefferson opposed.

James Madison made clear for year this thoughts about Nulification and Secession, and about the people advocating such doctrine. On April 3, 1830, Madison wrote a 4,000 word letter to Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina, in which he denounced nulification doctrine. In Madison's words, it was a "detailed dissent from, and rebuttal of, the South Carolina doctrine that a single State government had a 'constitutional right to resist and by force annul within itself acts of the Government of the U.S. which it deems unauthorized by the Constitution of the U.S.; although such acts be not within the extreme cases of oppression, which justly absolve the State from the Constitutional compact to which it is a party.••••••{On the contrary, Madison argued in the letter to Hayne, the government created by the Constitution "must be its own interpreter according to its text and the fact of the case--text and content." According to Madison, history demonstrated that "a political system that does not provide for a peaceable and authoritative termination of occurring controversies, can be but the name and shadow of a Government, being the substitution of law and order for uncertainty, confusion and violence."

Madison in a letter to Congressman Edward Everett of Massachusetts, August 28, 1830, stated, "...the proceedings of the Virginia Resolutions have been misconceived by those who have appealed to them."

In another letter to Mathew Carey dated July 27, 1831, he stated, "I have received your favor of the 21st, with your commencing address to the Citizens of S. Carolina. The strange doctrines and misconceptions prevailing in that quarter are much to be deplored; and the tendency of them the more to be dreaded, as they are patronized by Statesmen of shining talents, and patriotic reputations..."

And lastly, Madison had this to say about Jefferson's writings being used by those advocating such doctrines. In a letter to Nicholas P. Trist, December 23, 1832, Madison stated: "...It is remarkable how closely the nulifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them...It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject..."

James Madison deserves the final word on this subject. In his letter, 'Advice to My Country' in 1834, revealed only after his death in 1836:

"as to this advice, if it ever see the light will not do it till I am no more it may be considered as issuing from the tomb, where truth alone can be respected, and the happiness of man alone consulted. It will be entitled therefore to whatever weight can be derived from good intentions, and from the experience of one who has served his country in various stations through a period of forty years, who espoused in his youth and adhered through his life to the cause of liberty, and who has borne a part in most of the great transactions which will constitute epochs of its destiny."

"The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my conviction is that the Union of the States be cherished and perpetuated. Let the open enemy to it be regarded as a Pandora with her box opened; and the disguised one, as the Serpent creeping with his deadly wiles into Paradise."

I think Madison had it right and others have tried to spin him and Jefferson when there could be no spin.

Enough for now, more to follow.

YMOS,
Unionblue

unionblue · #62 11-19-2003, 12:36 AM

Hal,

Sorry to keep on, but on your contention that if the States had known about the 'Hotel California Federal Coercion Plan' they would not have signed the Constitution or joined the Union. I again submit, that States KNEW what they were giving up and went along with it.

The following is James Madison' notes on the Federal Convention of May 30, 1787:

[Mr MORRIS presented a resolution that was postpone-] "Resolved that the articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected & enlarged, as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, common defense, security of liberty & general welfare." [The following were presented:]

1. that a Union of the States merely federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the articles of Confederation, namely common defense, security of liberty & genl. welfare.

2. that no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual Sovereignties, would be sufficient.

3. that a national Government ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive & Judiciary."

[The third proposition was considered.]

"Genl. PINKNEY expressed a doubt whether the act of Congress recommending the Convention, or the Commissions of the Deputies to it, could authorise a discussion of a System founded on different principles from the federal Constitution."

"Mr. GERRY seemed to entertain the same doubt."

"Mr. GOVr. MORRIS explained the distinction between a federal and national, supreme, Govt.; the former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation. He contended that in all Communities there must be one supreme power, and one only."

"Mr. MASON observed that the present confederation was not only deficient in not providing for coercion & punishment against delinquent States; but argued very cogently that punishment could not in the nature of things be executed on the States collectively, and therefore that such a Government was necessary as could directly operate on individuals, and would punish those only whose guilt required it."

"Mr. SHERMAN who took his seat today, admitted that the Confederation had not given sufficient power to Congress and that additional powers were necessary; particularly that of raising money which he said would involve many other powers. He admitted also that the General & particular jurisdictions ought in no case be concurrent. He seemed however not to be disposed to make too great inroads on the existing system; intimating as one reason it would be wrong to lose every amendment, by inserting such as would not be agreed to by the States."

"...On the question as moved by Mr. Butler, on the third proposition it was resolved in Committee of the whole that a national government ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive & Judiciary."

Sorry Hal, but I don't see the reason for the surprise. Looks like everyone knew what they were getting and what they were giving up. They even compared the styles of federal and supreme in the above.

As for John Quincy Adams and the quote you use that he may have supported secession, I give you another quote by Adams, delivered in a speech on the Jubilee of the Constitution, April 30, 1839. The latter part of the speech is given below:

"...The Convention assemled at Philadelphia had themselves no direct authority from the people. Their authority was derived from the State Legislatures. But they had the Articles of Confederation before them, and they saw and felt the wretched condition into which they had brought the whole people, and that the Union itself was in the agonies of death. They soon perceived that the indispensably needed powers were such as no State government, no combination of them, was by the principles of the Declaration of Independence competent to bestow. They could emanate only from the people. A highly respectable protion of the assembly, stil clinging to the confederacy of States, proposed, as a substitute for the Constitution, a mere revival of the Articles of Confederation, with a grant of additional powers to the Congress. Their plan was respectfully and thoroughly discussed, but the want of a government and of the sanction of the people to the delegation of powers happily prevailed. A constitution for the people, and the distribution of legislative, executive, and judicial powers was prepared. It announced itself as the work of the people themselves; and as this was unquestionalbly a power assumed by the Convention, not delegated to them by the people, they religiously confined it to a simple power to propose, and carefully provided that it should be no more than a proposal until sanctioned by the Confederation Congress, by the State Legislatures, and by the people of the several States, in conventions specially assembled, by authority of their Legislatures, for the single purpose of examining and passing on it."

"And thus was consummated the work commenced by the Declaration of Independence--a work in which the people of the North American Union, acting under the deepest sense of responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe, had achieved the most transcendent act of power that social man in his mortal condition can perform--even that of dissolving the ties of allegiance by which he is bound to his country; of renouncing that country itself; of demolishing its government; of insituting another government; and of making for himself another country in its stead. And on that day, of which you now commemorate the fiftieth anniversary--on that thirtieth day of April, 1789--was this mighty revolution, not only in the affairs of our own country, but in the principles of government over civilized man, accomplished."

"The Revolution itself was a work of thirteen years--and had never been completed until that day. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are parts of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same theory of government, then new in practice, though not as a theory, for it had been working itself into the mind of man for many ages, and had been especially expounded in the writings of Locke, though it had never before been adopted by a great nation in practice."

"There are yet, even at this day, many speculative objections to this theory. Even in our own country there are still philosophers who deny the principles asserted in the Declaration, as self-evident truths--who deny the natural equality and inalienable right of man--who deny that the people are the only legitimate source of power--who deny that all just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. Neither your time, nor perhaps the cheerful nature of this occasion, permit me here to enter upon the examination of this anti-revolutionary theory, which arrays State sovereignty against the constituent sovereignty of the people, and distorts the Constitution of the United States into a league of friendship between confederate corporations. I speak to matters of fact. There is the Declaration of Independence, and there is the Constitution of the United States--let them speak for themselves. The grossly immoral and dishonest doctrine of despotic State sovereignty, the exclusive judge of its own obligations, and responsible to no power on earth or in heaven, for the violation of them, is not there. The Declaration says, it is not in me. The Constitution says, it is not in me."

Even John Quincy Adams had some other thoughts on the subject.

Until next time,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 19, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 19, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 19, 2003)

unionblue · #63 11-19-2003, 04:46 AM

Hal,

By now you must know I have a lot of time on my hands and use it to do research on the inter net! I want to answer one more part of your excellent post.

William Rawle is no stranger to me on this board. Thea and Tommy and others have made mention of the fact that Mr. Rawle's treastise on the Constitution does make reference to the fact that he believes that the States have an individual, unilateral right to secede from the Union. Much is also made of the fact, here on the board and at other sites that promote the idea that secession was somehow a legal right, that Rawle's treatise was used as a textbook at West Point and commented on by one author, "After the Civil War, it was claimed by Jefferson Davis and others that the Rawle book was used as a textbook at West Point, in a curiously tenuous attempt to legitimate secession as constitutional. In fact, the Rawle book was used at West Point, but only for a couple of years, and few Civil War figures would have been exposed to it there--not even Jeff Davis himself."

Now my dear friend Thea, as I remember, has commented that the book was in the library at West Point after it was removed from the current curriculum and was available for reading by Robert E. Lee and others. I will not dispute that fact, in fact I think she said Lee was there when the book WAS used in the course.

But, few if any state what replaced Rawle's book at West Point AFTER it was removed from the course there. It was supplanted in popularity by Kent's Commentaries and in authority by Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution. They make very interesting reading and I will give you their web site locations:

Kent's Commentaries
http://www.constitution.org/jk/jk_000.htm

Joseph Story's Commentaries
http://www.constitution.org/js/js_000.htm

And to be fair, I thought I would list St. George Tucker's View of the Constitution site.
http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm

Story's Commentaries has a heck of a lot to do with the idea of the Constitution being just a 'compact' between States. Check out Chapter III and see what had replaced Rawle's at the point and in opinion on the Constitution.

The difference of opinion is just like now, don't you think? But I have the view the majority of the country went with Story and Kent. No surprise there, I'll wager.

As for St. George Tucker, it seems to me he too was pushed aside by later views on the Constitution and was even in disagreement with his peers at the time (late 18th and early 19th century).

What it all really comes down to is what you research, sift through, weigh and compare, and then what your own conclusion is when deciding if the war was tragically unnecessary and a 'mockery' of all the Union stood for. What I have tried to do in this 'three part' answer to your post is to tell you why I feel the way I do and where I get the research and information that leads me to my views.

I have come to a different conclusion.

Respectfully,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 19, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 19, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 19, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 19, 2003)

#64 11-19-2003, 07:26 AM

Hmmmmmmm.....Neil must have got some rest. He has come out strong. Hal, I await your rebuttal, if you have one, with interest.

YMOS
tommy

thea_447 · #65 11-19-2003, 10:34 AM

In Neil's post of Nov.19th, 12:05 am:
.."I think Madison had it right and others have tried to spin him and Jefferson when there could be no spin."

Hmmm....I detect a little NEIL spin. Tell me,Neil, do you ever get dizzy?

Like Tommy, I'm gonna wait around and let the new member of the board, Hal, load his weapons. ...(strolls off humming "Welcome to the Hotel California...")

unionblue · #66 11-19-2003, 11:26 PM

Thea,

No, dear, I don't get dizzy from original source materials, however I do get a real sick feeling in my stomach whenever I have to view a LewRockwell page!

(Walks away humming 'Mine Eyes Have Seen The Glory...')

YMOS,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 19, 2003)

unionblue · #67 11-20-2003, 03:28 AM

Thea,

How about a purely Southern 'spin' on the theory of secession?

First, they doubted that there was a right of secession at all, no matter how stridently the States Rights supporters insisted that the right came from the compact theory. No clause existed in the Constitution that could be used to construe a right of secession; moreover, "No government," wrote a contributor to a newspaper named Old Hickory, "could be supposed to contain a provision for, or to sanction as a right, its own destruction." (From "The Right of Secession, No. !," Independent Monitor, July 17, 1851.) The reason why a government could not recognize treason was them amply laid out. Government would be totally unstable, and an unstable government would fail at its mission of protecting life, liberty, and property. Once the right of secession was admitted, groups had the privilege "of disobeying...at pleasure [the government's] laws or obligations." Judge Garnet Andrews of Georgia, a unionist in 1851 and later the Georgia American party gubernatorial candidate in 1854, warned that given the states righters' view of secession, "Then no government could stand for five years. It is the essence of anarchy." It was for this reason that citizens had to weigh carefully the call for separation from the North. People had a right of revolution, but they should exercise it only when true oppression occurred.

Those opposed to the States Rights party also proclaimed that at stake was the destiny of republicanism, or self-government. The editor of the Vicksburg Weekly Whig found the central issue to be the practicality of the Constitution, "[on] the perpetuity of which, hangs the freedom of mankind." In North Carolina, one individual, Henry W. Miller, warned that the idea of secession by convention was "in my humble judgment, repugnant to the Constitution, at war with the theory of our Government, and if established, will lead to the overthrow of our Republican system."

In fact, a number of scattered comments underscored the feeling prevalent among some Southerners that breaking the Union was equivalent to ending the modern experiment in liberty and self-government. An Alabamian wrote Daniel Webster in the midst of debate over Clay's compromise measures that "let us once separate & never will such another Government be organised in this World."

When you consider that during the 1850 & 1860s democracy as we now know it, and lower-class rights generally, hung in the balance throughout the Western world, this was not an unrealistic concern. Britain had the great majority of its workers disfranchised, trade unions were illegal, strikes were criminal acts, and quitting a job without an employer's permission was a breach of contract punishable by stiff fines and years of imprisonment. Throughout the rest of the world governments still had the legacy of serfdom, from Spain, Portugal, Italy, Russia, Hungary, Turkey, eastern Prussia and much of South America. Slavery was still around in Cuba, Brazil, Surinam, Africa, the Middle East and other places around the world. The idea, no matter how limited in the United States, and remember, the push was towards universal franchisment, for white men anyway, was considered a dangerous idea in the rest of the world. What if secession crushed the idea of democracy, forever? Many countries, to include England, would have breathed a huge sigh of relief to see democray fall by the wayside.

If secession were admitted as a legal device, then the future of the United States was easily written. The preamble to a Union Southern Rights Meeting in Stuart County, Georgia, warned, "If this confederacy is destroyed all is lost! Separation will follow separation, until the whole country is divided into little petty States and fractions, who , too weak to defend themselves, will become the prey of military leaders and demagogues."

There is more, much, MUCH more from the lips of those who lived in the South and thought secession mad, petty, and just plain crazy.

The above comes from the Kent State University Press, by James L. Huston, a paper entitled, Southerners Against Secession: The Arguments of the Constitutional Unionists in 1850-51.

What 'spin' does a Southerner have when he expresses his opinion that secession is wrong? Or is he 'just plain wrong?'

Or is a minority in the South without the right to express its true feelings about the subject of the wrongness of secession? And when You, the Southern majority secede over the preserving the rights of the minority from the majority of the nation, don't you in turn violate those minority rights of those who disagree with you and live with you? Then is it all right if they secede, (peaceably, of course!) is it not? Or do you call the ones that live in your midst traitors? Dilemma, dilemma!

(And to the refrain of "Spin away! Spin Away! Spin Away, Dixie Land!", he fades back into his trench to reload.)

YMOS,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 20, 2003)

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 20, 2003)

hawglips · #68 11-20-2003, 12:47 PM

Neil,

One problem I see with some of your research is that the “national” government debated and preferred by some in those heady days of creating the Constitution, was not the one they chose. The term “national” was entirely left out of the Constitution for a reason. A "national" government was rejected.

But as we know, it turns out Hamilton got the last laugh.

Madison made it clear that the Constitutional compact was federal in nature, and not a national one, and that the States were the fundamental unit. "The assent and ratification of the people," says Madison, "not as individuals composing an entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they belong, are the sources of the Constitution. It is, therefore, not a national but a federal compact.”

Madison also established that the compact can be pronounced void if one party violates any aspect of the agreement. "It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach committed by either of the parties absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void."

He then clarified that it was not the federal government but the States themselves, in their “sovereign capacity” and status as the fundamental units of the union, who could decide when it became necessary to act in pronouncing the compact violated and void or otherwise interpose. (Yes, Madison liked that “interpose” word. Seems he was quite adamant about the States interposing with sovereign decisions when they felt they really needed to.) "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."

And further that, "…the powers of the Federal government as resulting from the compact to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in the compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their. respective limits the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."

He also liked to make it clear that these powers of the States to “interpose” were “numerous and indefinite,” while those given to the federal government, to act in any manner whatsoever, were few and specifically defined. "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."

While arguing for ratification of the Constitution during the Virginia Ratifying convention, in order to persuade Virginia to ratify it, he guaranteed them that they’d be safe from federal dominance, because, “[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.”

He also made it clear that just because a federal body was elected, that did not give them the right to be an elective despotism. "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."

It’s quite clear that Madison was no proponent of the Hotel California Federal Final Say-So Might-Makes-Right domination plan a la 1861.

Even the chief proponent of strong “national” government himself, Hamilton, preached the folly of coercion: "For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword."

But all that changed in 1861. And I don't believe even Hamilton would have been happy about it.

I am sad to say that, though such a dominant federal government was not the road we were placed on by those who ratified the Constitution, the war to force union sent us down a different course, and indeed replaced the federal one with Hamilton’s national government -- one which took away the “sovereign capacity” of the States to decide for themselves when the federal government has overstepped it’s “few and defined” powers.

As Woodrow Wilson so frankly pointed out in our times, "The War between the States established . . . this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers."

What a travesty. Madison and the others are tossing and turning in their graves.

Thomas Jefferson warned us that, "The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers."

That calamitous fork in the road was taken in 1861. That road's monstrous destination watches our incremental advance with attentiveness, and eagerly awaits our arrival.

The war was tragic and unnecessary in more ways than one.

Hal

hawglips · #69 11-20-2003, 05:11 PM

Neil: If secession were admitted as a legal device, then the future of the United States was easily written. The preamble to a Union Southern Rights Meeting in Stuart County, Georgia, warned, "If this confederacy is destroyed all is lost! Separation will follow separation, until the whole country is divided into little petty States and fractions, who , too weak to defend themselves, will become the prey of military leaders and demagogues."

When the 13 colonies seceded as 13 free and independent States from England, they immediately sought to join a larger entity for safety and strength and mutual benefit - and did so with the Confederation.

When each of the Southern seceders left that Confederation as individual and sovereign States, they immediately sought to join a larger entity for safety and strength and mutual benefit - and did so by forming or joining a new Confederation.

(This is always a problem. On the one hand the Southern secessions are looked at in disfavor by the force-unionists because it is said secession might lead to never-ending divisions and a bunch of small, petty factions. And on the other hand, the same force-unionists disfavor it because they supposedly seceded to expand slavery by taking over more territory and getting bigger, instead of smaller. Both notions are concoctions of those looking to discredit it, it seems to me. Is it not more likely that a middle ground scenario takes place, such as, living in peace, side by side on the continent with their northern brethren?)

The impracticality and danger of ethnically and culturally similar people dividing into petty States and factions seems to prevent it from happening in reality. The notion of never ending divisions is unfounded it seems.

Neil: Or is a minority in the South without the right to express its true feelings about the subject of the wrongness of secession? And when You, the Southern majority secede over the preserving the rights of the minority from the majority of the nation, don't you in turn violate those minority rights of those who disagree with you and live with you? Then is it all right if they secede, (peaceably, of course!) is it not? Or do you call the ones that live in your midst traitors? Dilemma, dilemma!

The Constitution was set up with the States as the base unit. They came together and estblished the union of States. A minority within a State did not come together with other minorities or majorities to establish a State with the various groups as the base unit.

The dilemma, if you will, is encountered when one refuses to acknowledge the legality of secession on the grounds of a nebulous and unstated legal prohibition, and then engages in secession in violation of a clear and precise Constitutional prohibition, when it is beneficial.

Hal

unionblue · #70 11-21-2003, 12:53 AM

Hal,

I thank you for the above posts. I have come to look forward to them as you make me pull out my books and constantly look in on my soul and conscience. I truly appreciate.

In your post above (November 20, 2003 - 12:47 pm) ascribe that Madison and others had agreed to a 'different' view of the government they were proposing.

Then why the comment's by Madison where he comes out against secession? Why is he so adamant that this is wrong? Was not Madison even criticized and villafied by the South and his native Virginia for being somewhat of a turncoat traitor because of his stance against secession? Near the end of his life he seems very clear on the subject.

As for Alexander Hamilton, my namesake, a very interesting fellow, no? I would like to know in what reference he made the quote you use in the same post. I do know the man wouldn't tolerate the Whiskey Rebellion thing, so I don't know if he would go along with secession either. I know that many others here on this board have not used him to support the idea and I like the way you have brought him in from that direction.

Your second post (November 20, 2003 - 05:11 pm) I believe your contention that Southern seceders 'joined' together for safety, etc. to a larger entity is a false one. The Deep South had went its way over the issue of slavery while the Border States and the Middle South held off until the issue was forced by the firing on Ft. Sumter. I also tend to believe (at the risk of Thea & Tommy jumping in at this point!) that this is what South Carolina and the rest of the Deep South wanted when they fired on the fort, to force the rest of the Southern States off the fence and into the arms of that 'larger entity'.

As for the idea that there may have been a further breakup of the Confederacy was demonstrated during the war itself, with various States threatening to secede. Georgia, North Carolina, etc. Jeff Davis himself stated something to the effect, 'Died of a Theory' I believe.

As for the idea a bunch of 'potential' seceders, still in the Union, seeking to get more territory to expand the institution of slavery, you see a sort of contradiction in that? With the idea that that somehow detracts from the idea of continuing secession? Hmmm. Two separate situations it looks like to me. Myself, I'm surprised the government of the Confederacy did as well as it did, with all that was against it in creating itself out of thin air with all those strong personalities competing for control. The idea of it splitting even more is not far-fetched at all to me. But that's the frustration of 'what if', isn't it, Hal?

And Hal, I do not consider the refusal to recognize the 'legality' of secession the grounds of a 'nebulous and unstated legal prohibition'. From what I have seen, the idea of secession is what is nebulous and unstated, flowing primarily from one John Calhoun when it was beneficial to him.

Now, revolution, I got no problem with that nor a dilemma when the people exercise their God-given right to rebel and replace the government they find offensive. But just call it what it is, is all I ask.

I look forward to the next set, Hal. You are a true educator and taskmaster. I appreciate your time and effort.

Sincerely,
Unionblue