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.
Well, we obviously differ on this particular point, since I remain convinced that Charleston Harbour is an integral part of South Carolina. The Confederates were, therefore, like the Soviets, firing on a foreign flag which was over their territory.
Charleston Harbor is an integral part of South Carolina. The forts protecting it were Federal institutions built by all the people of the United States. Cash proved some time ago the existence of documents showing transfer of ownership of the artificial island on which Sumter was built from South Carolina to the Federal Government. Hence, it was firing on a flag, however foreign, on property which they had no claim to. This is further evidenced by South Carolina's attempt to purchase the island from President Buchanan.
So it turned its back on the other options (such as recognition of the Confederacy; or a limited military action such as a Federal fleet bombarding Charleston…something strictly proportionate to the military force already employed by the South) and launched a full-scale invasion.
The comment about bombarding Charleston must be facetious -- right? You simply must tell us about the "full-scale invasion." Big Bethel? Alexandria? Manassas?
In so doing, the Federal government must have taken into account the loss of Northern blood & treasure which would ensue, and they must have come to a rational conclusion that what they stood to gain outweighed the inevitable losses. And as the members of the cabinet were Republicans first and Americans second (as is the way with all politicians, then and now) it is reasonable to conclude that what they thought they stood to gain was the conquest of the South, the political emasculation of most of its population and the creation of a fertile area for the promotion of Republican interests (not to mention the opportunity for many Republicans to fill their pockets). It is extremely likely that some of them had sufficient vision to anticipate the waving of the “Bloody Shirt” and the consequent compromising of the Democratic Party. In short, they most probably had visions of years and years of Republican administrations, jobs for the boys, loads of cash all round.
I can only assume that your mighty leap to this conclusion is based on a deep long-held disdain for politicians in general and American nationalists in particular.
And who could question their judgement? That is precisely what happened.
If you believe "that is precisely what happened," you might consider working on separating logic from emotion.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Ole,
I think that Bill's conclusion was indeed logical.I'm not sure where he is being anti-American nationalist.I would hardly consider the entirely sectional party of the Republicans to be American nationalist.Aint that stretching the blanket a bit too tight Ole?Is it not pretty much universally agreed that the election of a President from a purely sectional party spurred secession.You could call the Nazi's German nationalist which they were to some I guess but they certainly weren't to all German citizens.
__________________ "The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." Regards, Ashley
I can only assume that your mighty leap to this conclusion is based on a deep long-held disdain for politicians in general and American nationalists in particular.
I'll come back to you on your other points in due course, but I can't let this pass.
Ole, I do slightly despair at the regularity with which some of you of the Northern persuasion jump to the conclusion that I am anti-American. I don't feel the slightest disdain for American nationalists. I haven't any but the fondest feelings for the modern United States. At no point have I ever made a serious statement on these boards which contained any anti-American sentiment. Do I detect just a tiny chip on your shoulder? I really don't wish to have an argument with you, but you do give me the impression that you have a rather provincial outlook and that you feel uncomfortable communicating with foreigners. I hope I'm wrong.
Can't you just accept that I am pro-Confederate and likely to give the Union cause and the Federal government of 1861-1865 a pretty hard time? As I understand it, the rules of CWT allow this.
As for my disdain for party politicians, regardless of their nationality, then, yes, I will admit that I hold them in utter contempt.
I expect nothing less than sides in a debate. The point is to argue with facts down to the point where facts are accepted and only final, personal conclusions remain. And you share my disdain for party politicians, but to conclude that the Black Republicans went to war to enrich themselves defies factual support.
I will admit that I have difficulty in determining when you are being light-hearted and when you are not. Subtitles?
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
You are right that my post is top-heavy with assertions and assumptions. That was quite deliberate, in an attempt to stimulate a particular debate.
Thanks for the smile logo. I really want to keep things friendly.
It's unfortunate that there isn't an irony logo. I will think very seriously about posting a warning on each occasion. Something like: "Warning! Smug Limey thinks he's being ironic. Example follows shortly." How would that do?
The design of such an emoticon would be a thread in itself. I propose a lime with a halo and a grin.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Remember everything Jefferson said.He not only thought states had the right to disregard federal law which didn't suit their interest but he advocated it as a way to keep the federal government from overstepping its lines.
As James Madison told us, this power belongs only to all the states acting together, not single states acting unilaterally. According to Madison, one had to pervert Jefferson's meaning in order to come up with the idea that a single state could nullify a Federal law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Lincoln sent men to invade the South without the approval of Congress.Therefore the war was unconstitutionl in 1861 to begin with.
Absolutely false. I suggest a brush-up on the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The President is charged with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed, therefore he is authorized to take the measures he deems necessary to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. The Militia Act of 1795 gives him the clear authority to call up the militia and use them in cases of rebellion, and the Act of March 3, 1807 clearly gives him the authority to use the regular Army and Navy to put down rebellion. Better stick with the actual U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws rather than the proconfederate variation. The U.S. Supreme Court looked at Lincoln's actions in 1862 and found them to be constitutional.
Lincoln could've called Congress into session anytime he wanted per the constitution to gain approval for his actions as I'm sure you are aware.
No, in fact he couldnt. He was limited in that it would have to be the 37th Congress that would be called into session, and not all of them had been elected yet. The Senate was complete but not all the House of Representatives was complete. For example, Maryland usually held its elections in September. In 1861 they had to hold a special election in order to meet the July Special Session. People often get confused because today we elect our Congress on the same day as the vote for the Presidential electors. That was not the case in the 1860s. Congress wasn't scheduled to start its session until December, and different states had different dates for elections of their representatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
If the Southern Congressman weren't so honorable
Arrogant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
and stayed in Congress they could've easily defeated Lincoln's call for troops.
What makes you think that? Congress wasn't in session and wasn't scheduled to be in session until December.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Was the political climate the same in April as it was in June?I'm not saying things would have been different in June but why didn't Lincoln follow the guidelines in the Constitution.
He did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
He sure had a habit of disregarding the Constitution and some authors have made a habit of writing excuses for his actions.
Mostly because he didn't disregard the Constitution, and those who claim he did are usually shown to be wrong, as in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Why didn't Lincoln let the Supreme Court decide the issue of secession being legal in 1861?
Would you have wanted FDR to get a court ruling after Pearl Harbor?
Those who have studied the operation of the Supreme Court will tell you the Court does not rule on a case until it has made its way up through the Judiciary system to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is an appellate court, which means court cases are tried at lower levels and brought to the Supreme Court for appeal.
In any event, the confederate states did not recognize the authority of the Supreme Court to rule in this matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Did Lincoln or other Northerners even make the remotest effort to put the idea of secession's legality to the Supreme Court in 1861?
Did Jefferson Davis or any Southerners do so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Why didn't they?
Jefferson Davis started a war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
Did they fear what the court would decide?
Looking at the case law prior to secession as well as the Court rulings after secession, one is hard-pressed to find any precedent that would favor secession being constitutional. On the other hand, there are a number of cases whose Court rulings presage a judgment that unilateral secession was unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileBoy
I'm not claiming secession would've been held legal but as a lawyer and politician Lincoln would have known the appropriate legal steps to take according to the Constitution.That he chose not to do so speaks volumes about how the man honored the Constitution of our country.
Sorry, but that's just a bunch of baloney. The states have to follow the law. Lincoln was charged by the Constitution with seeing that the laws were faithfully executed. When the confederate states stopped following the laws, Lincoln's constitutional duty was to force them to comply with the law. It's puerile to think that if they weren't abiding by the law to start with that a court ruling would have gotten them to abide by the law, especially since they no longer recognized the court had any authority over them. Lincoln followed the appropriate legal steps as outlined in the Militia Act of 1795 and fulfilled his constitutional duty to ensure the laws are faithfully executed in all the states.
Well, we obviously differ on this particular point, since I remain convinced that Charleston Harbour is an integral part of South Carolina. The Confederates were, therefore, like the Soviets, firing on a foreign flag which was over their territory.
Since unilateral secession was an unconstitutional act of no legal validity, South Carolina remained a part of the United States.
Cash,
My question would be who decides if an act is legally valid.Does Lincoln have the right to decide?Do only Northerners get to decide?The issue should have been decided by the Supreme Court as the Constitution said .Also Southerners felt that Northern states broke the contract by one state infringinging on another state's rights.You know I hold secession was illegal but Southerners might have a point for contention on the latter matter.I don't think the founders ever saw the point where a majority North or South could run the government and push its agenda by weight of population numbers.
__________________ "The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." Regards, Ashley
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
