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.
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?
Timelines again Dawna. Congress was scheduled to sit in December. In effect, by getting Congress together in early July, by your reasoning, Lincoln was cheating himself out at least 5 months' of militia service.
I submit that he rushed to get Congress together so that the two branches could begin suppressing the rebellion as a government.
When congress was accomplished, it demonstrated its approval of everything Lincoln had done to that time.
You've read Lincoln's speech to the special assembly on July 4. Where would you rank that among his other speeches?
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
From the book, America's Constitution; A Biography, by Akhil Reed Amar:
"Nothing in the habeas clause, however, specified whether suspension required prior congressional approval. In 1861, Lincoln powerfully argued that the logic of events might at times demand temporary unilateral presidential action. Congress might not be in session when rebels attacked or invaders landed (as it was not when Ft. Sumter came under unprovoked bombardment), and the rebellion or invasion might physically prevent Congress from assembling when summoned. As America's chief officer, always on deck and oath-bound to keep the constitutional ship afloat, a president could properly suspend habeas and take other emergency actions so long as he received legislative authorization as soon as Congress could be safely convened.
Or so Lincoln argued in defense of a wide range of military measures he undertook before Congress could meet in July 1861. In his view, the placement of the nonsuspension clause in Congress's Article I rather than the president's Article II did not impliedly require prior congressional approval. Rather, the Article I location of the clause simply confirmed that ultimately the decision was Congress's. The president could merely act temporarily, as Congress's faithful on-duty servant maintaining the pre-rebellion status quo precisely in order to preserve Congress's options. Even Lincoln's sensible claim of temporary-suspension power went beyond the traditional authority of British monarchs--a point stressed by Chief Justice Taney, speaking only for himself, in an 1861 in-chambers habeas ruling that sharply challenged Lincoln's suspension policy. Taney's ringing rhetoric slighted the fact that presidents were subject to constitutional checks--most important, front-end election and the ultimate threat of impeachment--that rendered them more trustworthy that hereditary kings. In response, Lincoln proceeded to disregard Taney's solo ruling, thereby challenging Taney's very jurisdiction over the matter. Jurisdictional technicalities aside, Lincoln insisted that his suspension of the writ was necessary to safeguard the very existence of the Union, its Constitution, and the great mass of other laws that he had sworn to uphold."
And as we all know, Lincoln got the approval of Congress when it came back in session and thereby did not break the law or violate the Consitution.
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
As you may know, the American Revolution isn't taught in British schools. I
am conscious of my ignorance on the subject and therefore prefer to ask
questions rather than try to supply the answers.
What I keep at the front of my mind is the information Neil supplied a while
back, when he told me that approximately one third of the colonists supported
the revolution, one third were Loyalists and one third were undecided.
On the basis of this I question whether it can be called a revolution at all.
It seems, rather, to have been a coup d'etat. On the issue of popular support
the Confederate cause seems to have had a much greater legitimacy than the
rebellion of 1776.
As for the second class status of colonists, I have much sympathy with what
you say. But, of course, the revolution diminished the rights of
Loyalists. Even I know how shabbily many of them were treated. And if Neil's figures are correct that means that as many Americans were badly served by the new order as prospered under it.
You state that “Southerners, as American citizens, already enjoyed all the rights and privileges they could have possibly obtained from a separate government.” I disagree. Please bear in mind that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, inherent in the democratic process to protect a minority from the overbearing will of a majority. In a nation where political polarisation follows strict geographical lines you can have one region enjoying a decisive demographic advantage and thus imposing its will – permanently - on another region. The crime of being smaller condemns the latter to political impotence.
It is for this reason that it is so essential to recognise the right of any region to withdraw its consent from being governed, and then to withdraw itself from the body politic. Without that right they are entirely dependent on the goodwill and self-restraint of their more powerful neighbours. And that simply isn’t right.
Dear Bill,
I took your earlier question seriously and tried to answer it as seriously as I could.
Some loyalists who fought for the British in the Revolution moved to Canada after the war, out of conviction or fear of reprisal. Their sons got a revenge of sorts by decisively defeating an American attempt to seize part of Canada during the War of 1812.
However, I believe that under the Treaty of Paris, the British government required that loyalists either retained their property or could gain recompense for it. Shamefully I don't have any excuse not to know this part of American history. However, I don't believe there was wide spread oppression of the losing side. I'll look it up.
The famous quote by John Adams of one third for, one third against and one third neutral is not based on any research or polling by Adams, and its neat symmetry make it suspect. I think that coup d' etat is not the most accurate term for the Revolution. Another thing to check up on.
It seems any political community, whatever the size, has the potential to oppress minorities. During most of US history, blacks were legally discriminated against and without any political rights at all.
But being outvoted is not the same as being oppressed or discriminated against.
In Massachusetts, western Mass. often complains about being ignored by the bulk of the population in eastern Mass. In Maine, northern Mainers complain about being ignored by the bulk of the population that live on the coast.
I guess the remedy is to have structures, like the Bill of Rights, or the Senate, which promote sectional or individual rights.
I remember a quote from Hubert Humphrey: "It's time for us to leave the cave of states' rights, for the bright sunlight of human rights."
A quick scan of Amar's book does not reveal anything about the arrest of the Maryland legislature, but I may have missed it.
However, if you wish to further explore some debate that has already taken place on the is board, I invite you to view the following thread in this very same section of the forum:
I will continue to see if Amar has anything to say on the subject in his book.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
PS Welcome to the board.
__________________ "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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
