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.
I have been reading a critique of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation written by a former Supreme Court Justice, Benjamin Robbins Curtis. It is called Executive Power, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1862.
Beginning, page 12, last paragraph:
I am a member of no political party. Duties, inconsistent, in my opinion, with the preservation of any attachments to a political party, caused me to withdraw from all such connections, many years ago, and they have never been resumed. I have no occasion to listen to the exhortations, now so frequent, to divest myself of party ties, and disregard party objects, and act for my country. I have nothing but my country for which to act, in any public affair; and solely because I have that yet remaining, and know not but it may be possible, from my studies and reflections, to say something to my countrymen which may aid them to form right conclusions in these dark and dangerous times, I now, reluctantly, address them.
I do not propose to discuss the question whether the first of these proclamations of the President, if definitively adopted, can have any practical effect on the unhappy race of persons to whom it refers; nor what its practical consequences would be, upon them and upon the white population of the United States, if it should take effect; nor through what scenes of bloodshed, and worse than bloodshed, it may be, we should advance to those final conditions; nor even the lawfulness, in any Christian or civilized sense, of the use of such means to attain any end.
If the entire social condition of nine millions of people has, in the providence of God, been allowed to depend upon the executive decree of one man, it will be the most stupendous fact which the history of the race has exhibited. But for myself, I do not yet perceive that this vast responsibility is placed upon the President of the United States. I do not yet see that it depends upon his executive decree, whether a servile war shall be invoked to help twenty millions of the white race to assert the rightful authority of the Constitution and laws of their country, over those who refuse to obey them. BUT I DO SEE that this proclamation asserts the power of the Executive to make such a decree.
I do not yet perceive how it is that my neighbors and myself, residing remote from armies and their operations, and where all the laws of the land may be enforced by constitutional means, should be subjected to the possibility of military arrest and imprisonment, and trial before a military commission, and punishment at its discretion for offences unknown to the law; a possibility to be converted into a fact at the mere will of the President, or of some subordinate officer, clothed by him with this power. BUT I DO perceive that this executive power is asserted.
I am quite aware, that in times of great public danger, unexpected perils, which the legislative power have failed to provide against, may imperatively demand instant and vigorous executive action, passing beyond the limits of the laws; and that, when the Executive has assumed the high responsibility of such a necessary exercise of mere power, he may justly look for indemnity to that department of the government which alone has the rightful authority to grant it; -an indemnity which should be always sought and accorded upon the CLEAREST admission of legal wrong, finding its excuse in the exceptional case which made that wrong absolutely necessary for the public safety.
But I find no resemblance between such exceptional cases and the substance of these proclamations and these orders. They do not relate to exceptional cases - they establish a system. They do not relate to some instant emergency - they cover an indefinite future. They do not seek for excuses -they assert powers and rights. They are general rules of action, applicable to the entire country, and to every person in it; or to great tracts of country and to the social condition of their people; and they are to be applied whenever and wherever and to whomsoever the President, or any subordinate officer whom he may employ, may choose to apply them.
Certainly these things are worthy of the most deliberate and searching examination.
Let us, then, analyze these proclamations and orders of the President; let us comprehend the nature and extent of the powers they assume. Above all, let us examine that portentous cloud of the military power of the President, which is supposed to have overcome us and the civil liberties of the country, pursuant to the will of the people, ordained in the Constitution BECAUSE we are in a state of war.
(Later, on Page 17..) What is the source of these vast powers? Have they any limit? Are they derived from, or are they utterly inconsistent with, the Constitution of the United States?
The only supposed source or measure of these vast powers appears to have been designated by the President, in his reply to the address of the Chicago clergymen, in the following words: "Understand, I raise no objection against it on legal or constitutional grounds; for, AS COMMANDER-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war, I suppose I have a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy." This is a clear and frank declaration of the opinion of the President respecting the origin and extent of the power he supposes himself to possess; and, so far as I know, NO SOURCE of these powers other than the authority of commander-in-chief in time of war, has ever been suggested.
(And on Page 18 Curtis goes further...) It must be obvious to the meanest capacity, that if the President of the United States has an IMPLIED constitutional right, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy in time of war, to disregard any one positive prohibition of the Constitution, or to exercise any one power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, because, in his judgment, he may thereby "best subdue the enemy," he has the same right, for the same reason, to disregard each and every provision of the Constitution, and to exercise all power, NEEDFUL, in his opinion, to enable him
"best to subdue the enemy."
*************
This little book goes into detail about President Lincoln's actions, which the writer denounces as those of a usurper and a military despot. It is particularly interesting in light of the fact that Curtis wrote one of the two dissenting opinions in the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford Case.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
I am afraid I have not read the book. k..here is what I have come up with so far. Bear in mind this may or may not be germane. I do not want you to think that these are legitimate signposts.
Lincoln was considered to be a person (a bit) more reticent than most to commit things to paper. I found two references in letters written to him stating that fact.
I found one letter from guy (named Jonas I think) to Lincoln saying he had info regarding Indiana know Nothings too important to risk putting pen to paper. So had to arrange a face to face.
Lincoln went out of his way to court favor and not risk upsetting the Know Nothings. Which leads me to believe he was an very close associate yet not a member. In one letter he is told he was seen leaving a Know Nothing lodge. He said it wasn’t him and if needed he could get respectable men from the lodge to give affidavits he wasn’t.....odd way to defend himself....he “could” be a Know Nothing but it seems that they were many politicians who were not “officially” members but were part of the cabal......maybe without their knowledge?
The Know Nothings had infiltrated the Whigs and the Republicans and even Democrats. They were a very secret society. I mean VERY secret.
Seward was considered by a lot of people to be a Know Nothing....he was assuredly a..cohort..
Many politicians (democrats included) were in the control of the Know Nothings. While perhaps not members they were tools.
Ok.....I know the moment the word conspiracy is uttered, eyes roll. But there is no other word fits the Know Nothings.
Conclusions.....ok...of course it is entirely too early for conclusions. Yet I see one possibility that on the surface seems outlandish. Even I have hard time with it. I think it is very possible that the Republicans and Democrats were both pawns. Both doing exactly what the Know Nothings wanted. I know I know....sounds like some novel. Too far fetched to be believed etc. Until you start seeing just how powerful these guys were. I recall line from movie....Greatest trick Satan ever did was getting people to believe he did not exist. I see a pattern, it’s just there is so much info and none of it is actually Know Nothing stuff. They’re just too secret. But if you look at the whole picture you can see the blanks....the outline of the shape of the Know Nothings. One thing I find disturbing is the very real possibility that the Know Nothings wanted war. They used the Republicans and Democrats both. Both could played right into their hands. Right now I am trying to define the Know Nothing link with Banks in Europe.
As I said....this really is not a legitimate signpost. I could be walking the wrong way........but I’m going to keep walking along this way to see what I can kick up....
BTW.....you can go to American Memory, type in Know Nothing in the search engine and get so very much. It will take me a while to even scratch the surface.
What a lovely thread this has become! Detailed and rich in information and sources, yet full of heart, emotion, and strong opinion.
I wish to address several of the above posts by Thea, Tommy and Bill.
I see that the old saw about the South having to pay for the transcontinental railroad has reared its head on this thread. Thea has even referred to Wyrd Sister's comments from the other thread on this subject, Transcontinental Railroad, where she and Connie Boone debated this little fact.
Yet Connie refutes this idea of the South carrying the burden with a quote from Jefferson Davis himself in which Davis supports the railroad because it will be built on federal property and that the federal government owned the land on which it would be built and "would not discriminate against any citizen or part of the nation."
As late as 1859/60 Davis went on to suggest that "To avoid the problems of selecting a route, he suggested authorizing private companies to present plans for construction; he argued that they would make decisions on the best way west on an engineering basis, not politics. Then, accepting the best proposal, the government could provide alternate sections of land in the territories and advance as much as $10 million, to be repaid from the railroads profits."
Therefore the argument that the controversy on the railroad was some point of contention that helped lead to the war was a very minor one. And somehow the idea that the South had less track at the start of the war is somehow made into the fault of the North somehow. It is a fact that private companies built the railroads for profit and built them where they would get a profit, is it not? So why didn't the South have some businessmen who would lay more track and build more railroads? Maybe because there wasn't enough money in it? How is the government held responsible for that or for holding the South back somehow because there is no profit in it?
Thea on another post here has constantly brought up Adams as one of the founding fathers and one of his views on the states parting if things ever got cold and unfriendly. Other founding fathers had a lot to say on the subject of secession and none of it as a right or a good idea.
James Madison: "The baneful practice of secessions, a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions and the ruin of popular governments than any other which has yet been displayed among us."
Thomas Jefferson: "I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the Union into two or more parts."
From the Federalist #22: "Owing its ratification to the law of a State, it has been contended that the same authority might repeal the law by which it was ratified. HOWEVER GROSS A HERESY IT MAY BE TO MAINTAIN THAT A PARTY TO A COMPACT HAS A RIGHT TO REVOKE THAT COMPACT, the doctrine itself has had respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper than in the mere sanction of delegate authority. The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority."
For more of what many other founders had to say, please go to the "Was the civil war constitutional' thread and check out post Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 01:24 pm. Rick McLeroy lists quite a few of them and what they thought about keeping the country together.
Now Tommy, I had a thought (Yes, it is possible for a Yankee Postal Employee to have one) about our long discussion concerning the Helper Book and how it stirred up and made the South so angry and concerned about its contents.
This is where I had my problem. We both discussed that any anti-slavery publications aimed at the South were censored and suppressed in the South. That there was no way for the vast majority of white, non-slave owning persons to get this publication so that they could read it or comment on it. There were 100,000 copies of it and I think you will agree that since it could not even be published in the South, that a large portion of these copies were given out in the North, not the South. We can also assume that none of the copies were given out to any of the slaves of the deep South, can we not?
So, if the majority of the population of the South did not read nor have access to this publication, what portion of the South's population DID read this book and find it threatening and offensive and a danger to them? My contention is the very people the book did mention, all Southern slaveowners and slave handlers and the like, the very people who had the most to lose if slavery was abolished.
And again, I find no mention of tariffs as the main cause of this offensive book, only the abolition of slavery. So if the book was restricted in its distribution, who and or what segment of the Southern population cried out the loudest about its contents?
The very men who held power, the men from the South who sat in the Senate, the Congress, the State legislatures, the Governors, etc. Everyman that had something to lose with the old order being gotten rid of, these were the ones who raised protests and alarms, the elite of the South. Why wouldn't they be offended and terrified at the prospect of losing their source of power and position?
At least, that is the way I view it at this moment.
Just an observation,
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
Got some information for you. I was reading the book, "Runaway Slaves" by John Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger, and found the following figures in Chapter 11, entitled, 'Counting the Costs.'
On page 285 it states:
"In the early nineteenth century young able-bodied field hands were valued at $350 in Richmond, $500 in CHarleston, and $500 in New Orleans; in 1837, averages ranged from $900 in Richmond to $1,200 in Charleston and $1,300 in New Orleans; by 1860, averages in Richmond and Charleston were about $1,200, in New Orleans, $1,800. Women; children; the elderly; slaves who were deformed, scarred, diseased, or crippled; and babies without parents brought less, and the average for all slaves was smaller than the average for field hands."
I know that in one of our earlier posts on Lincoln offering to compensate slaveowners you had asked the price of slaves to see if he was offering fair compensation. Hope this information is of help.
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on June 05, 2003)
__________________ "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
Neil,
If you will read Rep Branch from N Carolina you will see that the north and south built railroads differently. The manner to which the land was distributed etc was a key issue. Yet there is another key point I think should emphasis should be laid on. The purpose of the railroad was intially one of military value. There was no need for it to go through the north. There was a very legitimate need for it in the south. The north deliberately subverted an idea everyone thought was good for profit for only themselves, not, I repeat NOT for the general welfare of the nation. Which was the case of a military endeavor.
Regarding Know Nothings. I just can't see how there can ever be a firm link indicating anything more than their considerable power during the 50's and behind the scenes machinations. As A "formal" political party they had brief success then faded away. What bothers me is the level of secrecy. Couple that with the way they just disappeared by going into the 4 parties. Whig, Repub, Demo, Con Union...and the unreal percentage of the known Know Nothings that ended up happy on the government teat regardless whom they supported. Especially when you notice they actually fared better than other original members of the party they joined. I smell a rat. But smelling a rat is not enough. Perhaps a trained spook like yourself may have more luck than I....after all, I am dim as a penny candle. And a penny candle is not enough to shine light on a 150 year old conspiracy.
I recall reading somewhere that the South (in Congress) held up the Homestead Act and Transcontinental railroad due mainly to the fact that it would encourage more free-state settlement and those who were not friendly to slavery and thereby reduce the number of Slave States and such.
And I have read Mr. Branch's speech, etc., but why doe Jeff Davis make his claims that it would be a good idea to do it his way, re my post above?
As for your observations on the Know-Nothings, I tend to feel the same chill you do over the secrecy of that organization. I also wonder just how much impact they had on those parties they filtered into. I'm going to be doing a little inter-net searching on the subject and see what I can turn up. Who knows? Maybe at one little, unknown site, we may tumble into the entire conspiracy of the Know-Nothings.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
(Message edited by Unionblue on June 05, 2003)
(Message edited by Unionblue on June 05, 2003)
__________________ "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
It has been suggested that perhaps this thread is getting a bit large and a bit off track from the original question it started with.
Now, with no party participating on this thread admitting any kind of defeat or surrender, perhaps we should begin a new thread on a new subject proposed by another member of this board who has participated in this thread.
Since I have had the honor of beginning this thread, I would suggest that a person who has participated on this thread, that we all agree on, begin a new thread with a subject or area of their choice.
I would happily continue this thread and try for the world's record of posts on a particular thread on a Civil War talk board, but will bow to the wishes of my fellow board members.
What say you, fellow board members? Time for a new road and debate? Or shall we forge ahead on this never-ending thread?
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
I have broached this subject of a new thread before but only to the extent that perhaps it could be called Part 2 "What are Your Personal.....",etc.
Personally I LIKE the veritable potpourri of thoughts that stream in on this thread. Although lightly woven, they still intrigue us and set us off on new paths.
I would not like to start another subject line, rather, a continuation of this one. I merely thought that a new thread would make it a bit easier to load for some who may be on AOL, etc. I'm on cable modem and it's even getting a bit slow for me but I will go with the majority (for once!!)
As to the turn this is taking towards the Know-Nothings, this is an area I am not very familiar with and so I consider myself a Know-Nothing and will be content to intersperse other stuff while the knowledgeable Know-Nothings carry the ball! LOL
Just kidding, it's all fascinating to me and this thread should not be allowed to die. If everyone wants to go for a record of length on this same thread I will stay with it too. I'm not particular.
What say you, Tommy, Bill, Gregory, Ed and others? (If I've left out anyone who participates a great deal it's not out of rudeness, it's my CRS syndome kickin' in!
YMOS, Thea
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
I have no issue with a part 2 to this thread. In fact I would prefer it because I have a dial up modem to aol and one of the reasons I do not participate as much as I should is the fact that it takes forever to load. I get a far faster response from my PC at work which is why I'm typing this now.
Another thing, Is that I do not mind wandering from the specific topic now and again. After all how many times can you say the same thing over and over again. It is clear that we have radically different views; it is also clear that our views will not really change. But through it all we have managed to maintain a relative level of composure and respect for one another.
So we should have maybe a potpourri thread, one that has many different scents but still has a connecting point. I would personally like to talk about the individual soldiers myself. I have a lot of material from soldiers in the following regiments: 1st New York Engineers, 11th Virginia, 6th New York Heavy Artillery, 17th New York Infantry, 65th NYV, 95th NYV, 127th NYV,141st Pennsylvania Infantry. I think it might be interesting to post letters or diaries of some of these guys for your review and education. then we can comment on them if desired.
Just a thought. we have dwelled a lot lately on the politicians, we should spend some time on the guys who took the lead mini-ball because of the politician's blunders.
Bill, I think has made an excellent point. And people on dial-up are at a disadvantage with the length of this thread now. I would even take it a bit further. Why couldn't we start TWO new threads, a Part 2 of Personal Opinions and another thread devoted to A Soldier's War: Personal Diaries and Thoughts .
Gee, we might be able to attract a whole slew of genealogy folks who would share personal letters and such from their family histories. That would be a real treat for people to fully understand both the Yankee and the Rebel soldier and how they felt about the war, why they fought, and what they considered to be important during that turbulent time. And we might also get some news from the people left at home, what they were enduring, etc.
This would probably attract more people that have things they would like to share but don't feel up to the rather daunting task of butting heads with some of us. (Although why anyone would fear a timid lil' Southern woman riding around in an Abrams 1A2 tank totin' an Enfield I wouldn't know...I can certainly see why NEIL might scare somebody, but not me! LOL)
What does everyone think?
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
