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.
Since no political opinion is ever universal, I must admit to using the wrong adjective.
But I like your Perkins quotes. Here's another one:
"During the weeks following the [1860] election, editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question.... On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of a reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed." -- Howard Cecil Perkins, Northern Editorials on Secession, 1964
The idea that the states knew they were joining a union of sister states in from which there was no way out, is absurd.
"The constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the constitution, that it rests upon this legitimate and solid foundation. The States, then, being the 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.” (The Madison Report)
"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.” Life of Webster, Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge
And the absurdity is heightened exponentially when the question of using military might against a state to force it to remain against its will is piled on top of that.
"To coerce a State would be one of the maddest projects ever devised:
no State would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of
coercing another." ~ Alexander Hamilton, New York
If the bond of union be the voluntary consent of the people, the government may be pronounced to be free; where constraint and fear constitute that bond, the government is no longer the government of the people, and consequently they are enslaved. -- St. George Tucker, as cited in A View of the Constitution of the United States, With Selected Writings, (Liberty Press: Indianapolis, IN, 1999) 27
My original point stands. The CSA meant more slavery, the USA meant less. As the war progressed, the USA meant none.
Hal, I'm not understanding your point "how was a slave different in the USA?" Do you mean in the Northern part that was left after secession, or the entire USA both North and South before secession?
As war progressed, the USA meant none -- only in those areas where they had no political control and it would hurt the CSA's war effort. Refer to the Great Emancipator's proclamation if there is any uncertainty.
I see no difference in a slave's liberty whether the ground under his feet flies the stars and stripes or stars and bars.
Hal,
You are certainly correct in your position that the Constitution wouldn't have been signed if they knew they would be invaded,killed, and have their homes burned unless they submitted to Northern rule.Many of the Northern states would never have ratified it either.Anyone that thinks so has made an immense error in judgement.
You are certainly correct.
It is amazing to me that the enthusiasm for defending coercion is so robust. I would expect such in Cuba, China, Vietnam, etc. But here?
Quote: Admiral__Porter
No the south left because they couldn't imagine life without slavery.
Wrong again. Obviously the South left the Union due to a direct threat to their agrarian rights and desired way of life. Life without slavery was ALREADY a given with the GREAT MAJORITY of Southerners; most of whom physically constituted the rank & file of Confederate armies. Your forementioned premise therefore nullifies itself forthright.
Your position is not in accordance with the historical record.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery." [Mississippi Declaration of Causes]
"Our people have come to this on the question of slavery." [Lawrence Keitt, South Carolina Secession Convention]
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." [Georgia Declaration of Causes]
"The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy." [George Williamson of Louisiana to Texas Secession Convention]
"I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery." [E. S. Dargan to Alabama Secession Convention]
"What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery." [Henry Benning of Georgia to Virginia Secession Convention]
The "average joe" Southerner, who constituted the vast majority of fighting men in Confederate armies had a FREE CHOICE to join, and they did by the thousands, on their OWN volition. And they re-enlisted in 1864, again of their own FREE WILL.
Perhaps you ought to read about the confederate conscription act of 16 Apr 1862.
Originally Posted by unionblue
I'm afraid Hal, there is much historical evidence that your states knowingly comitted suicide, because they did know they were entering into such 'bondage' as you call it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
There is more historical evidence showing the contrary.
In fact, there is not. The major Anti-Federalist argument against ratification of the Constitution was that the Constitution didn't sufficiently protect individual liberties, and because once in there was no way to get out unilaterally, the liberty of the people would be destroyed. The Federalists countered by showing how individual liberty was guaranteed with the Constitution. At no time did anyone contradict the argument of once in, no way to get out unilaterally.
On August 23, 1787, in the Federal Convention, Charles Pinckney brought up the proposal that the Congress should have the power to overturn any state law that was contrary to the general interests and harmony of the Union. An ordinance of secession, by the way, would be such a state law that would be contrary to the general interests and harmony of the Union.
The decisive argument against this, leading to its rejection, was by Roger Sherman of Connecticut, who pointed out that such a power was unnecessary, since the Constitution and US Laws were already paramount over state laws according to the Constitution as they were framing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
And none at all that hints of a federal government that would use bayonets and blood as the primary bonding agent of the proposed union.
On 18 July 1787, the Federal Convention debated the clause guaranteeing a republican form of government to each state.
The Framers certainly envisioned the Federal Government using bayonets and blood as the primary bonding agent of the Union here:
[begin quote]
Resol. 16. "That a Republican Constitution & its. existing laws ought to be guarantied to each State by the U. States."
Mr. Govr. MORRIS-thought the Resol: very objectionable. He should be very unwilling that such laws as exist in R. Island should be guaranteid.
Mr. WILSON. The object is merely to secure the States agst. dangerous commotions, insurrections and rebellions.
Col. MASON. If the Genl. Govt. should have no right to suppress rebellions agst. particular States, it will be in a bad situation indeed. As Rebellions agst. itself originate in & agst. individual States, it must remain a passive Spectator of its own subversion.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Resoln. has 2. objects. 1. to secure Republican Government. 2. to suppress domestic commotions. He urged the necessity of both these provisions.
Mr MADISON moved to substitute "that the Constitutional authority of the States shall be guarantied to them respectively agst. domestic as well as foreign violence."
Docr. Mc.CLURG seconded the motion.
Mr. HOUSTON was afraid of perpetuating the existing Constitutions of the States. That of Georgia was a very bad one, and he hoped would be revised & amended. It may also be difficult for the Genl. Govt. to decide between contending parties each of which claim the sanction of the Constitution.
Mr. L. MARTIN was for leaving the States to suppress Rebellions themselves.
Mr. GHORUM thought it strange that a Rebellion should be known to exist in the Empire, and the Genl. Govt. shd. be restrained from interposing to subdue it. At this rate an enterprising Citizen might erect the standard of Monarchy in a particular State, might gather together partizans from all quarters, might extend his views from State to State, and threaten to establish a tyranny over the whole & the Genl. Govt. be compelled to remain an inactive witness of its own destruction. With regard to different parties in a State; as long as they confine their disputes to words, they will be harmless to the Genl. Govt. & to each other. If they appeal to the sword, it will then be necessary for the Genl. Govt., however difficult it may be to decide on the merits of their contest, to interpose & put an end to it.
Mr. CARROL. Some such provision is essential. Every State ought to wish for it. It has been doubted whether it is a casus federis at present. And no room ought to be left for such a doubt hereafter.
Mr. RANDOLPH moved to add as amendt. to the motion; "and that no State be at liberty to form any other than a Republican Govt.
Mr. MADISON seconded the motion
Mr. RUTLIDGE thought it unnecessary to insert any guarantee. No doubt could be entertained but that Congs. had the authority if they had the means to co- operate with any State in subduing a rebellion. It was & would be involved in the nature of the thing.
Mr. WILSON moved as a better expression of the idea, "that a Republican form of Governmt. shall be guarantied to each State & that each State shall be protected agst. foreign & domestic violence.
This seeming to be well received, Mr. MADISON & Mr. RANDOLPH withdrew their propositions & on the Question for agreeing to Mr. Wilson's motion, it passed nem. con.
[end quote]
But I like your Perkins quotes. Here's another one:
"During the weeks following the [1860] election, editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question.... On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of a reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed." -- Howard Cecil Perkins, Northern Editorials on Secession, 1964
I'll have to get back to you on this one. I don't have my Perkins with me at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
The idea that the states knew they were joining a union of sister states in from which there was no way out, is absurd.
"The constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the constitution, that it rests upon this legitimate and solid foundation. The States, then, being the 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.” (The Madison Report)
Your misuse of Madison is pretty absurd. Notice he refers to the "States" in the plural in every instance. Madison is here referring to all the states acting together.
You might ask how I know this. I know this because Madison very clearly told us that's what he was referring to:
"The veil which was originally over the draft of the resolutions offered in 1798 to the Virga. Assembly having been long since removed, I may say, in answer to your enquiries, that it was penned by me; and that as it went from me, the 3d. Resolution contained the word 'alone,' which was stricken out by the House of Delegates. Why the alteration was made, I have no particular knowledge, not being a member at the time. I always viewed it as an error. The term was meant to confine the meaning of 'PARTIES [emphasis in original] to the constitutional compact,' to the States in the capacity in which they formed the compact, in exclusion of the State Govts. which did not form it. And the use of the term "States" throughout in the PLURAL [emphasis in original] number distinguished between the rights belonging to them in their collective, from those belonging to them in their individual capacities." [James Madison to James Robertson, 27 Mar 1831]
"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of -98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a SINGLE [emphasis in original] party, with the PARTIES [emphasis in original] to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the PLURAL [emphasis in original] number, STATES [emphasis in original], is in EVERY [emphasis in original] instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a ditinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the wrod RESPECTIVE [emphasis in original], prefixed to the 'rights' &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should united in contending for the security of them to each.
"It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers 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. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, Vol. 2, with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. 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 to Nicholas Trist, 23 Dec 1832]
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
"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.” Life of Webster, Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge
With all due respect to Sen. Lodge, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Madison is the Father of the Constitution, and I'll take his word over Sen. Lodge's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
And the absurdity is heightened exponentially when the question of using military might against a state to force it to remain against its will is piled on top of that.
What is absurd is the thought that the Federal Government would stand around and allow a rebellion to take place without putting it down. The Founding Fathers were very clear that the Federal Government had that authority. I have already posted the relevant material on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
"To coerce a State would be one of the maddest projects ever devised:
no State would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of
coercing another." ~ Alexander Hamilton, New York
Another misuse of a quotation. "Coercion" was forcing a state into some action, such as collecting a duty. Holding them to their obligation to stay in the Union is not coercion. It is enforcing the law. Every government has the power to enforce the law.
The USA also meant more tax money to invest in Northern, railroads, and government subsidy. The National road began in the North, and moved to the West. It was a Federally funded project. As late as WWI, the government found that it was not completed! Of the three East-West railroads, the two northern ones were subsidized. The Southern was built by shares sold to individuals.
Lincoln followed in the footsteps of Alexander Hamilton, who was the only Constitutional delegate from New York that signed the Constitution. Hamilton was an advocate of big government. He sought federal control in his time. Example: The Revolutionary war debt incurred by some states was much larger than others. Hamilton wanted a national tax levied to pay the war debts. Jefferson and others wanted each state to be responsible for it's own debt. I interpet this two ways1) One State should not be responsible for the debt of another, The Federal Government should not be allowed to dictate policy.
Hamilton's early years were poverty stricken, Lincoln's early years were lean also.
TODAY:
Northerners and Southerners are not going to agree.
IN THE FUTURE:
If enough lies are taught from history books, we may even consider ourselves members of the same race!
olrebel
The idea that the states knew they were joining a union of sister states in from which there was no way out, is absurd.
"The constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the constitution, that it rests upon this legitimate and solid foundation. The States, then, being the 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.” (The Madison Report)
Quote:
Cash: Your misuse of Madison is pretty absurd. Notice he refers to the "States" in the plural in every instance. Madison is here referring to all the states acting together.
So, only all the states acting together, can decide if the compact of all the states together has been violated by all the states acting together?
And all the states acting together can decide if said united violation of themselves against themselves requires their own interpostion between themselves and themselves?
I'm sure that must be an interesting absurdity, if I could manage to grasp it.
"To coerce a State would be one of the maddest projects ever devised:
no State would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of
coercing another." ~ Alexander Hamilton, New York
Quote:
"Coercion" was forcing a state into some action, such as collecting a duty. Holding them to their obligation to stay in the Union is not coercion. It is enforcing the law. Every government has the power to enforce the law.
This would be funny if not so absurd.
Forcing a state to an unstated and unagreed to "obligation" to remain within a union is "enforcing the law?"
Russ has already thoroughly dismantled and laid to rest the poorly joined argument that such a phantom law existed.
I also suppose that this means you will never again argue that the federal government had the right to coerce a state into paying duties and imposts to the feds?
I suppose we should all take careful note of this point, so that in future discussions we can all agree that to force the collection of duties and any other such coercion against a state is utter "madness."
Hmmmmm.
(The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere. --A.Lincoln)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
1) One State should not be responsible for the debt of another, The Federal Government should not be allowed to dictate policy.
Linear Mode
