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 would be most interested in the specific instance of breaking the Constitution to instigate war. If you please.
Ole:
My statement read, "and if President Lincoln could break the Constitution to instigate war..."
A specific example of Constitutional stretching was the suspension of habeas corpus. Although the Constitution does allow the suspension of habeas corpus, it appears in Section 9 of Article 1, which is the Article that defines the power of Congress. But it is not mentioned in Article II, which defines the President's powers - this suggests to me that Congress must grant prior authorization when habeas corus is suspended.
"And, he firmly believed in the Constitution, treading very lightly with actions that might seem unconstitutional."
It seems to me that suspending the writ of habeas corpus is a priime example of where President Lincoln reduced the Constitution to barely a whisper.
When calling for troops, he was acting on the explicit authority granted by the Militia Act of 1795.
Marc:
By defining the State's withdrawal as an "insurrection," President Lincoln could then raise an army under the Militia Act of 1795. But how do you justify the fact that the use of this militia was limited to 30 days after the beginning of the next session of Congress; and by delaying Congress for over two months, the President was able to extend the use of the militia against the Confederacy before Congress could assemble and debate his actions?
__________________ "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
My statement read, "and if President Lincoln could break the Constitution to instigate war..."
A specific example of Constitutional stretching was the suspension of habeas corpus. Although the Constitution does allow the suspension of habeas corpus, it appears in Section 9 of Article 1, which is the Article that defines the power of Congress. But it is not mentioned in Article II, which defines the President's powers - this suggests to me that Congress must grant prior authorization when habeas corus is suspended.
"And, he firmly believed in the Constitution, treading very lightly with actions that might seem unconstitutional."
It seems to me that suspending the writ of habeas corpus is a priime example of where President Lincoln reduced the Constitution to barely a whisper.
Dawna
Timelines. Putting aside for a moment the legality of suspending the "writ," it was not done before the Confederacy instigated the war. Ergo, he could not have broken the constitution before "instigating a war." How many were jailed before April 15th?
Curses. I've mislaid my copy of the constitution. Fortunately, I'm aware of the argument that suspension is in the "powers of congress" section and not in the "powers of administration" section. That has been thoroughly discussed and, to my satisfaction, debunked. Someone will come by soon to administer the coups de'gras. Again.
Congress, when it is in session, is indeed the only entity authorized to suspend the writ. And that brings up the point you made about "more than two months to call congress together" -- how long do you think it would take to assemble congress? In 1861? When the scheduled session was to begin in December? (Do you suppose this had anything to do with Davis' precipitous decision to bombard Ft. Sumter?) When some of the delegates had not yet been elected? How long did it take to get from the West Coast to Washington? How long did it take to get the summons to those remote locations? Seems like April 15 to July 4 is faster than a speeding bullet.
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 do not have to be taken in, dear friend, nor feel our celebration of the 4th of July is some massive contradiction. It is meant to celebrate our separation from England by a successful revolution. Nowhere do we mention our court battle was a success.
I am always happy to raise a glass on 4th July. I am glad the colonies won their independence: the world is a richer and more interesting place for the existence of the U.S.A.
But I’m not letting you off the hook quite that easily. I don’t buy this “They were both illegal rebellions but one was successful” rationalisation that you’re trying to sell me.
Let’s imagine that I’m a Northern citizen in 1861, and I go along to listen to Senator Neil Hamilton speak in favour of the war. What is his message? “Friends, I urge you to enlist and help put down this wicked rebellion…but please bear in mind that if the wicked rebels prevail on the battlefield they will have been right all along. Just as we were 80 odd years ago.”
You wouldn’t have persuaded me to volunteer on that basis.
Surely the truth is that you consider the Confederate cause to have been a morally bankrupt one – and you would still have thought that if they had won their independence. And a further truth is that you believe the American Revolutionary cause of 1776 to have been a thoroughly righteous one despite its technical illegality.
That being the case, the onus is on you and your fellow-Unionists to come up with a really convincing argument to show why the earlier, unambiguously illegal revolution is worthy of celebration while the second merits brutal suppression. Unless you can spell out the clear moral water which divides the two – divides the two so markedly that the one is positively good while the other is positively bad - the dispassionate observer must conclude that the Union cause is pure humbug, with just a dash of malice.
__________________ "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
Dear Bill,
A thought provoking post. Why is 1776 good and 1861 bad?
Shortly after the Revolution ended, Daniel Shays, a former captain in Washington's army, led a rebellion in western Massachusetts against the state of Massachusetts, because of high taxes. John Hancock, then governor ordered the militia to suppress the rebellion, which they did. Samuel Adams, the veteran patriot leader approved of Hancock's action.
Shay had no right to break the law, which he, as an citizen of Massachusetts, helped create. Because he was an equal member of the political community, he had the opportunity and responsibility to participate in the political process to change the law, not to break it when the rest of the political community decided on a course he disapproved of.
In the British Empire of the 1700s, Americans were not part of the political community. They were excluded from Parliament. They were second class citizens, and there was not way for them to become first class citizens as long as they were Americans. Given distance and technology in the 18th century, it is doubtful there was any way for them to become first class citizens or to be equally represented. The only way for them to fully and truly to be part of the political process, and to fully govern themselves, was to form a new political community. The American Revolution created new freedom where it hadn't existed before.
The Southern Revolution of 1861, didn't create any new freedoms. Southerners, as American citizens, already enjoyed all the rights and privileges they could have possibly obtained from a seperate government. Unlike in the American Revolution, their form of government didn't change with secession, the USA and CSA constitutions were, with minor changes, identical. Like Captain Shay, they were part of a political community, a democracy where their voices were heard, their votes counted, their wishes heeded, their rights respected.
But the political leadership of the South, Hammond, Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, Stephens did not want anyone else's votes counted, sought to stifle other voices, trampled on others rights. All to protect the interests of human slavery. And when they perceived that interest was threatened, they turned to war. The Unionists of 1861 sought to preserve democracy, a system which is also about sometimes losing elections. The Tories of 1776 sought to preserve a system that didn't have elections at all.
In my opinion, that's the difference between 1776 and 1861. Secession can't be considered in isolation. Secession from what? To what? Why?
And what is a State without people? Territory waiting to become a State. Without people, there is no State.
A State does not have rights. The people do.
Sincerely,
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
By defining the State's withdrawal as an "insurrection," President Lincoln could then raise an army under the Militia Act of 1795. But how do you justify the fact that the use of this militia was limited to 30 days after the beginning of the next session of Congress; and by delaying Congress for over two months, the President was able to extend the use of the militia against the Confederacy before Congress could assemble and debate his actions?
Dawna
Dawna,
I don't need to justify it. Lincoln acted within the law, and his actions were supported by Congress.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Matthew:
Thank you for so efficiently and eloquently disposing of the figgy pudding dished up by our distinguished British colleague as logic.
Most appreciative, good sir.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
