Was War Necessary After Secession?

[unionblue]

Hal,

Just found a few interesting concerning Hamilton's view on coercion.

"In Federalist 16 is the main argument that the Articles of Confederation required active cooperation from the states, which would often be available only through federal coercion. By allowing the federal government to operate directly on individuals, the Constitution would obviate the need to coerce states. But what if a State interfered with the enforcement of federal law? Arguably, this would create the same difficulty: "IF any state should be disaffected to the authority of the Union it could at the same time obstruct the execution of its laws, and bring the matter to the same issue of force" as would be required under the Articles to obtain state cooperation. Thus, it could be claimed that allowing the federal government to operate directly on individuals would do nothing to obviate the need for coercion of states."

"But Hamilton objected that this claim overlooked the much lesser need for coercion because of "the essential difference between a mere NONCOMPLIANCE and a DIRECT and ACTIVE RESISTANCE." Active resistance, unlike noncooperation, is overt and unmistakeable. State officials would be "obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights." This would normally bring into play the state judges, who had a duty to enforce federal law, as well as alerting the public, which would presumably still be loyal. Thus, "Attempts of this kind would not often be made with levity or rashness, because they could seldom be made without danger to the authors." And the government would possess ample means to repress limited rebellions. "As to those partial commotions and insurrections which sometimes disquiet society from the intrigues of an inconsiderable faction, or from sudden or occasional ill humors that do no infect the great body of the community," the government would possess greater resources than the states to suppress such disturbances."

"Federalist 16 ends on an ominous note. Hamilton turned to the worst-case scenario: "those mortal feuds which in certain conjunctures spread a conflagration through a whole nation, or through a very large proportion of it, proceeding either from weighty causes of discontent...or from the contagion of some violent popular paroxysm." Such catastrophes "do not fall within any ordinary rules of calculation" and "commonly amount to revolutions and dismemberments of empire." No system could completely guard against this possibility. "No form of government can always either avoid or control them. It is in vain to hope to guard against events too mightly for human foresight or precaution, and it would be idle to object to a government because it could <u>not</u> perform these impossibilities." Serious as such a situation would be, Hamilton only seemed to fear that the federal government might lack the legal authority to do so."

Hamilton summarized his view: "Sir, when you have...rendered your system as perfect as human forms can be--you must place confidence; you must give power." Everyone knows, he said, that the federal government's purposes were "numerous, extensive, and important," so everyone also "must acknowledge the necessity of giving powers, in all respects, and in every degree, equal to those objects." Inasmuch as a constitution "cannot set bounds to a nation's wants; it ought not therefore to set bounds on its resources." Above all, Hamilton continued, "Unexpected invasions, long and ruinous wars, may demand all the possible abilities of the country." "The contingencies of society are not reducible to calculations. They cannot be fixed or bounded, even in imagination."

I think Hamilton made it pretty clear where he was going when he stated the above.

Source for the quotes above are from the book, Lincoln's Constitution, by Daniel Farber, Chapter 5, pages 97-98.

Hal, still would like to know in what context Hamilton said the quote you use. I'd like to read the entire context it was used in.
Thanks.

YMOS,
Unionblue

[thea_447]

Neil, in a 11-20-03 post said:
"...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 &amp;
never will such another Government be organised in this World."

You imply that this meant that the Southerners wanted to do away with the republican form of government. Then why would they write their new Constitution as an almost exact replica of the Constitution of the United States? What they wanted was to return to the original republican form of government, not this pale image of a former self.
Another quote you used says: "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."

I've stated my views on this on a number of posts, Neil. I don't believe this would have happened. The South would have stayed together for mutual survival as a new nation. If they'd been allowed to leave peacefully, there would have been no need for acrimonious relations between the two nations, only a mutual respect for the rights of each.

Then you add: What 'pin'does a Southerner have when he expresses his opinion that
secession is wrong? Or is he 'just wrong?'

To this I would answer that obviously there were those in the South who didn't believe in secession. They were outnumbered by those who did, just as in the North there were those who believed the South should be allowed to leave in peace; but they too were out-numbered.

It matters little now, Lorena,
The past -- is in eternal past,
Our heads will soon lie down, Lorena,
Life's tide is ebbing out so fast;
There is a future -- Oh, thank God --
Of life this is so small a part,
'Tis dust to dust beneath the sod,
But there, up there, 'tis heart to heart.

[unionblue]

Thea,

I imply nothing. I have simply offered the statements of those citizens of the Union who lived in the South who feared secessionist's doctrine would destroy 'the last, best hope of earth.'

I also think the key word in your statement above concerning the Southern version of the pale Constitution is the one, 'almost'. Many Southerners expressed their opinion that secession would mean the end of democracy, that secession was a form of national suicide. There is much in the way of Southern sentiment against the idea of secession, peaceable or otherwise, throughout the entire decade proceeding the Civil War.

As for my contention the South would continue to fracture again and again, that is not my own observation, but again, from those of the South, to include Jefferson Davis's, "Died of a Theory" observation. You must know the context in which Jefferson was speaking when he uttered this phrase. Some of the very States of the Confederacy, during the height of the war, threatened secession from the Confederacy! North Carolina refused to supply uniforms to Lee's army when they desperately needed clothing, reserving them only for State troops. Georgia baulked at Richmond's leadership, fighting for its own interests. This when every ounce of supplies and every man was needed for National defense. And even 400,000 white Southern men could not support their region's goals and fought in the Union Army.

As for the contention that Southerners who still lived in the South during the war and did not support secession being outnumbered by those who did so somehow their wishes could be ignored somehow because the North outnumbered the South? Thea, there is a principle here that would almost be funny if it wasn't so tragic. What were those poor souls to do? Move? Leave their homes and fortunes behind? Didn't they have rights that should be endowed with mutual respect?

Or was it just impossible for them to separate from their home, their state, their country? Two wrongs make a right if you stand in the South, but not in the North? Confusing, isn't it?

Until that time,
Unionblue

[hawglips]

Neil,

Hamilton's above quote was from the New York Convention. Notice his tone, as well Madison's, when trying to convince their respective states to ratify the Constitution! They were very quick to assure their compatriots that the States would not be coerced and would retain their sovereignty and that the federal government's power would be limited, specific, and well-defined, when ratification was at stake.

The Constitution could not have been ratified with the idea that the States were locked in, and the federal authorities could force their will on the States. And I do not believe Madison or Hamilton would have condoned what the federal government did outside of the "specific," "few," "limited," and "well-defined" powers in 1861.

"Sovereign State" does not mix well with federal coercion. The Hotel California clause at the penalty of death does not mix well with "voluntary union."

As Massachusetts senator Henry Cabot Lodge writes in his book, Life of Webster, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw.”

And it is safe to say that the Constitution would not had been ratified by the States otherwise.

The war to force union was unnecessary and, quite frankly, shameful.

Hal


(Message edited by hawglips on November 25, 2003)

[hawglips]

Neil: As for the contention that Southerners who still lived in the South during the war and did not support secession being outnumbered by those who did so somehow their wishes could be ignored somehow because the North outnumbered the South? Thea, there is a principle here that would almost be funny if it wasn't so tragic. What were those poor souls to do? Move? Leave their homes and fortunes behind? Didn't they have rights that should be endowed with mutual respect?

Neil, there is a minor distinction here that is want to be ignored.

The Union was formed by the States - each who voluntarily joined it as a unit, debated its benefits and creation, and ratified it in the end. The States were NOT formed by the various counties or sections in a similar manner.

The States are the basic and key element of our republic.

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

I am quoting from another thread here, but let me say this on your above posts.

"Which came first; the Federal government or State government? Most people would say the State governments combined to form the Federal Government. Although this is a common misconception of the truth, it is still a misconception. The states did NOT pre-exist the federal government. The first Continental Congress convened on September 5, 1774 with representatives of the PEOPLE of the several colonies of England."

"There were basically 2 different parts to the representative governments then in place in the colonies. The first was an Assembly of elected representatives of the people of the colony. The second was the Royal Governor and his council who were usually chosen by the king or his council. There were no States as we now know them. It was at the urging of the Continental Congress that the State Constitutions were written and STATE governments formed separated from the control of the Royal Governors."

The above, and much more, can be found under the thread "Did Lincoln declare War on the Confederacy?" The post is listed:
Posted by Rick McLeroy on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 12:26 pm. I suggest you read it as it makes fascinating reading. I find the last part of this post most interesting.

"On June 7, 1776 Richard Henry Lee arose in Congress assembled in Philadelphia to call for the adoption of a declaration of independence from England. Congress, after much debate resolved to wait for at least 3 weeks to issue such a statement but authorized a committee to begin drafting the document. On July 2, 1776 the document, authored by Thomas Jefferson was adopted. For the next two days the document was edited in committee and on July 4, 1776 the final version was approved and sent to the printer. The document was titled "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America in Congress Assembled". This was somewhat of a misnomer as by this date only four actual "States" had been formed, the rest were still without a legal "state" government. Of these four, three of them had actually adopted provisional governments. In effect it was the Continental Congress, not a confederation of sovereign states, that proclaimed American independence from Great Britain."

blackirish

I also ask you to read another post of Rick's on the thread titled;
"The Civil War - America's 2nd War for Independence?" Rick's post is listed as:
Posted by Rick McLeroy (Blackirish) on Friday, December 14, 2001 - 12:46am.

The post deals mainly with the ratification of the Constitution and why I feel the States knew what they were getting into and what they were giving up to become a nation.

With these posts there are my views, formed with Rick's help and my own research, on the importance and place of the States in the formation of the country and the ratification of the Constitution.

I do consider the war tragic and unnecessary, but only because the South took the actions of war and rebellion, instead of submitting its cause to a national vote or trial before the Supreme Court. Dressing it up as something 'legal' in the theory of secession made it no less a rebellion.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on November 26, 2003)

[hawglips]

Neil, since when does a "Continental Congress" meeting establish a nation or even a loose federal government, particularly when they even referred to themselves as subjects of Great Britain in the resolution that came out of it? I am always amazed by this illogic.

Who attended and participated in this Continental Congress? And by whose authority were they there? And what was the purpose of their convening? And what was the outcome of it?

The Constitution would have never been ratified by the States had they believed that the Hotel California might makes right plan was in place.

The States of the South merely wanted to be left alone to exercise their rights of sovereignty. The decision to force union at the point of the bayonet was indeed a tragic, unnecessary and shameful one.

Hal

[johan_steele]

"The States of the South merely wanted to be left alone to exercise their rights of sovereignty. The decision to force union at the point of the bayonet was indeed a tragic, unnecessary and shameful one."

Always an interesting argument when it is remembered whose guns the first shots emerged from, who first seized property of a "foreign nation" who first captured soldiers from that "foreign nation." I think by any definition the status of beligerant goes to the CSA.

Incidently, the Peace through superior firepower adage has always held sway. Too bad the gods of war failed to smile upon the CSA. The south sowed the seeds of war... when it came time to reap the whirlwind they didn't care for it.

[unionblue]

Hal,

I begin to think we are going in circles here. May I assume you read the posts by Rick McLeroy I mentioned above? First you state that the States formed the Union. Rick shows that this was not the case. The Union sprang from the actions of the Continental Congress. These action were not neat or formal and it was true that it was trying to address the then legal government of England of its subjects woes.

Then it really got messy when things got beyond kissing and making up. When you think about it, it is truly a miracle the country got together at all.

If the Southern States had a right to sovereignty, it was not mentioned in the Constitution they had signed and agreed to. In order to form a more perfect Union, I think the line goes. And as for those who say that secession is not mentioned in the Constitution, neither is the idea of shooting the President when you no longer agree with him. You don't put every contingency in writing, if you have common sense, there is no need.

The South could have exercised its rights in the form of a national referendum or taken its case to the Supreme Court. It chose the path of violence and reaped its reward. Again, your Hotel California concept is an interesting theory, but the South knew it was headed down a hard road when it secretly began to arm itself before secession even took place. There had been warning aplenty before the outbreak of was that the idea of secession was simply an act of rebellion to most of the nation and would be opposed by violence.

The South chose violence, the South miscalculated, the South paid the price with the knowledge of what those actions might bring. They gambled and lost.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Hal,

Had this prayer emailed to me by my dear friend, Old Reb. Can you tell me who the author is?

"Almighty God; We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; and Thou wilt incline the hearts of its citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to its government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large."

"And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

Any takers?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on December 05, 2003)