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.
Dawna,
The use of force doesn't require labeling any group as anything but violators of the law. The attempt to unilaterally undo a Constitution, to undo the results of a legitimate democrat election, and to unilaterally dismember a nation is by definition rebellion. The President has the authority to enforce the laws, and the Militia Act of 1795 gives the President specific authority to use military force to suppress a rebellion.
best,
marc
There were many legitimately elected leaders who were arrested and sent to prison...all for the reason that they might vote for secession-
"In the fall, Lincoln arrested allegedly disloyal members of the state legislature (Sept. 12-17, 1861), to prevent them from attending a meeting that could have voted on secession. But Maryland was not really safely in the Union until the November state elections. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested known Democrats and any disunionist who attempted to vote. The special three-day furlough granted to Maryland troops in the Union army, so they could go home and vote, further rigged the election. The result, not surprisingly, was a solidly pro-Union legislature. The next year, state judges instructed grand jurors to inquire into the elections, but the judges were arrested and thrown into military prisons." http://www.etymonline.com/cw/maryland.htm
Where specifically in the Constitution does it prohibit secession, or sanction the use of coercion against a fellow state? And what rights do you have if you are not free to peacefully withdraw from a government that no longer suits your needs?
Dawna,
Article V, prescribing the process for making changes to the Constitution, and Article VI, the Supremacy Clause, in combination make it clear that unilateral secession is not legal. There is no need to "sanction the use of coercion against a fellow state," since in the case of rebellion, a "state" is not responsible, the individuals who are attempt to break the law are responsible. The use of coercion against individuals, or groups of people, breaking the law is clearly sanctioned. There is no right to peacefully withdraw from the authority of any legally constituted government although there are legal means for changing that government. Individuals or groups can, of course, attempt to assert their natural right of revolution, but that must be made good with force, as it is a natural human right, not a positive legal right under the Constitution.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
It stands to reason that even if secession had been illegal, President Lincoln still had other options available than the one he chose. And that alternative would have saved the lives of over 600,000 people.
Dawna,
Perhaps, though in my judgment war was inevitable, as Davis, under pressure from staunch secessionists, was intent on creating an incident in hopes of bringing Virginia, and other border south states, into the confederacy. For Lincoln not to have held firm at Sumter would have been taken as weakness, would have been a Confederate victory, and would have encouraged secessionism.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
The special three-day furlough granted to Maryland troops in the Union army, so they could go home and vote, further rigged the election.
I have to weigh in on this... the idea that allowing soldier to vote is somehow rigging an election... is so offensive as to be almost comical. Apparently it is a real criminal act to allow a soldier to vote; the sign of tyranny apparently... I suppose some would say things haven't changed any since the Civil War.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
I am in partial agreement with your statement, that some of the South felt the federal government was no longer working for them. But there were plenty of options open to them before taking that fatal step of rebellion.
In any given situation we can look back and beat ourselves up over what we could have done differently. Sometimes we are right, sometimes we only punish ourselves by wondering “what if” when, in fact, there was nothing that would change the outcome significantly.
I’m not aware of the Southern states making any kind of stand for or against secession prior to 1860, so I can’t comment on that. No matter whose opinion I read everything eventually brings me back to the Constitution. It does not forbid secession and the tenth amendment is a strong statement in favor of the right to secede.
“Why didn't the Southern states try to get a candidate more to their liking elected in the next election in 1864?”
Northern industry was bringing in immigrants causing a rapid increase in Northern population. This put the South to a serious political disadvantage, because ballots clearly reflected the sectionalism that so marked and defined the country.
“Why didn't they try to press the cause to the Supreme Court?”
The Southern states didn’t see the matter as being under the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. No one had the legal power to grant permission to the states to secede.
“Why didn't they call for a national referendum on their grievences?”
The largest section of the nation had already spoken, at the polls, in the newspapers, and publicly. It would have been of no avail to appeal to the North to do the right thing. The North clearly believed they were in the right and would not bend. Also, begging permission from the North wasn’t an option for any Southern state that wished to preserve her honor since the North did not hold the keys to grant permission, anyway. The best that could be hoped for was that the North would agree not to invade and cause a war. I believe that was negotiated as well as it could be, but the negotiations failed.
“Why not try every other means short of bloody war to get their agenda across?”
That same question could be asked of Lincoln and the Northern people. It would have been a small concession for Lincoln to withdraw Anderson from Sumter. That would have been a gesture of goodwill and an additional opportunity to open communications for peace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
You are right. The facts and causes of the crisis should have been carefully weighed and considered, far more than it was. Unilateral secession was, as General Lee termed it, nothing but rebellion, and should have been the last, desperate measure of a desperate people. Which was not the South in any way shape or form, except for the instition of slavery.
The States had no 'right' to unilateral secession, then or now.
Was that you or General Lee saying unilateral secession was nothing but rebellion? I believe the only rebellion was on the part of Mr. Lincoln. He rebelled against the constitution rights of the Southern states.
Regards, Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
I’m not aware of the Southern states making any kind of stand for or against secession prior to 1860, so I can’t comment on that.
Here is one sample of southern sentiment in 1855:
WHAT THE SOUTH IS NOW THINKING AND SAYING ABOUT THE COURSE
OF THE NORTH.
"THE TEMPER OF THE SOUTH.- Concerning the slavery question, the south has not been for many years in so quiet a mood. There is a perfect placidity of sentiment throughout the slave States. We have no indignation meetings - no torrents of declamation and denunciation - no fiery threatening resolutions. For all these there is a deep, deep calm. And the reason is, that at length, after decades of bickerings, the whole section is agreed that the day is at hand. At length - at length, and for the first time in many a long year - the south occupies her true position, untrammelled by thrice accursed "compromises," and looking only to the Constitution for the measure of her rights. For the first time, too, she sees her fanatical enemies clothed with full power to do their will, in the House of Representatives of the United States. And thus there is made, for the first time, the true issue between the North and the South. How it will be decided is another question, but it is glorious that it is to be decided: that a few short months will give the conflict its culmination; and that whether the hordes of free-soilers and abolitionists are driven back impotent, overpowered by the innate conservatism of the whole people, or the south is compelled to withdraw from a government which is fast becoming her greatest enemy - in either event, our real relations with the antagonist section will be brought out in bold relief. The day of hypocrisy and duplicity will be over; our friends will be our friends, and our enemies our enemies.
There never was a time so full of hope for the south, and for the maintenance and the extension of slavery. The wit of man could not devise for us a better relation than that which we occupy to the forces of free-soilism. We battle not for half our rights, but for the whole. Our enemies have ample power in one House to do that thing which all parties in the south have said shall be cause for dissolution; and for all the purposes of detriment to the south the action of that House will be as potent as if the deed could be carried through all the parliamentary processes necessary to make it a law. The representatives who thus control the House are incited by frantic, howling constituencies at home. Can they recede? The South cannot. If she did, Cuban vassalage would be too mild a doom for her degenerate sons. Out of this "nettle, danger," if the south has true men in Congress, shall she "pluck the flower, safety." The whole people of the south see the question as it really is. They are assured, at last, and are rejoiced by the assurance, that pro-slavery and no-slavery are at length to have an honest, fair, open fight - and they have courage and faith. The South can only fail of success and a bright future, on a supposition which is almost an insult to her to make that she would consent to remain in the Union, after one branch of the national legislature had made a deliberate attack upon her rights, by a repeal of the fugitive slave law, or the passage of a bill abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. So we say, the " good time" is nearly come. God hasten it! Our people see its approach, and hail it with quiet satisfaction. There is no need for noise, the final contest is just ahead, and we could not avoid it if we would, nor would we if we could."
DeBow’s Review, volume 18, 1855
Quote:
“Why didn't they call for a national referendum on their grievences?”
The largest section of the nation had already spoken, at the polls, in the newspapers, and publicly.
Since Lincoln didn't carry a popular majority, it seems likely to me that some common ground could have been found. But I don't think that a federal slave code would have made it, and I don't think anything could have made the Fugitive Slave Act any more palatable.
Dawna,
Article V, prescribing the process for making changes to the Constitution, and Article VI, the Supremacy Clause, in combination make it clear that unilateral secession is not legal.
Marc:
Given President Lincoln's views on secession, it was quite clear that he would never have allowed the States to go, and with respect to Article VI, since only those Federal laws which are pursuant to the Constitution are the "supreme law," wouldn't this signify that the States have the right to interpret the Constitution equally with the Federal government?
I would like to suggest that with the combination of the people's right to a natural revolution, and the design of the 10th Amendment, the actions of the Confederacy remained well within legal environs.
"Perhaps, though in my judgment war was inevitable, as Davis, under pressure from staunch secessionists, was intent on creating an incident in hopes of bringing Virginia, and other border south states, into the confederacy. For Lincoln not to have held firm at Sumter would have been taken as weakness, would have been a Confederate victory, and would have encouraged secessionism."
I have to disagree Marc. I think if President Lincoln had chosen an option other than war, it would have portrayed a man (and country) of great moral strength.
I have to disagree Marc. I think if President Lincoln had chosen an option other than war, it would have portrayed a man (and country) of great moral strength.
Illegal appeasement has not, so far as I can see, been considered a sign of moral strength anywhere in the world.
To put the lens of realism on the suggestion, only the people through their representatives can give away the property of the people -- Lincoln had neither the right nor power to do that. And then there's the reality of politics. Withdrawing the forces, which he did have the power to do, would have been construed by the electorate as betrayal and a breach of his campaign and inaugural promises.
It would have been indeed foolish to capitulate in the face of a war which everyone wanted to avoid but everyone knew was coming. He would have been lucky to avoid impeachment. At the very least, he would have given the antagonists an strong edge in the coming conflict. Lincoln's options were more limited than imagined today by the Confederacy's apologists.
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
Given President Lincoln's views on secession, it was quite clear that he would never have allowed the States to go, and with respect to Article VI, since only those Federal laws which are pursuant to the Constitution are the "supreme law," wouldn't this signify that the States have the right to interpret the Constitution equally with the Federal government?
I would like to suggest that with the combination of the people's right to a natural revolution, and the design of the 10th Amendment, the actions of the Confederacy remained well within legal environs.
Dawna,
The natural right of revolution has no standing in positive law, it is the recourse outside of positive law when a government becomes destructively oppresive. The states have no standing whatsoever to interpret the Constitution. The rejection of nullification clearly demonstrates this. There is no point in blaming Lincoln's views on secession, since his views were the majority views in the country, and in fact were the correct legal views as shown by previous legal precedent, and by the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White in 1869.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
I have to disagree Marc. I think if President Lincoln had chosen an option other than war, it would have portrayed a man (and country) of great moral strength.
Dawna,
The secessionists were hoping that he would vacillate like Buchanan, or just back down. This would have discredited him and made him appear weak, and rightly so.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
