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.
But, in my own humble opinion, when Trice presented the entire letter by Lee, it is my own corner's view that the sum of its parts does speak a bit louder then selected quotes here and there, carefully selected to present to the audience here to come to the conclusion you most desire to direct them to.
Neil, I appreciate this fully, I really do.
However, the question of Lee was introduced purely within the context of his opinion of secession.
It was erroneously stated that his view of secession was similar to Lincoln's. And that he only fought for the South because his beloved Virginia so sided.
However, that is a far cry from what the historical record shows, as Lee's words and actions attest.
What the secessionists wanted to do was to break an agreement.
What the secessionists did was repeal their independent ratification of the union of sovereign States.
Quote:
...they needed to get the "right of secession" recognized under the rules of the agreement -- in short, through the law and the Supreme Court. This is what they had all agreed to do, and they didn't want to abide by their word.
I am not sure where the Constition states this requirement to get a Supreme Court ruling on the question.
Quote:
The constitution is an agreement, entered into freely by all the parties. It has no explicit escape clause, but it does have a method for resolving any and all disputes between the parties, and it does have a single body authorized to ==DECIDE== any such issue.
The Supreme Cout is to decide on the constitutionality of legislation. Like the legislation surrounding slavery and the new territories. That sort of thing.
Quote:
That method is the law, and the body is the Supreme Court. All parties agreed to this -- or they would never have become part of the United States. Every individual official, Federal or state, swore an oath to do this Constitution when he entered office. There is not the slightest doubt about any of that -- not then, and not now.
The oath is to the Constitution, not the federal government. That is the problem. If the foes of the Constitution happen to control the federal government, there is no recourse left for its friends.
You keep speaking of the Supreme Court as the final arbitrar for such questions. Yet, the single question, according to Lincoln, that was THE sticking point between the sections, had to do with slavery in the new territories.
Though the Supreme Court had ruled decisively on the question, Lincoln and the federal legislature refused to abide by that ruling.
Who is wrong? Who is acting in compliance with the Constitution, and who is not?
When push came to shove, the judicial branch was impotent in the face of an executive and legislative branch that would ignore the constitutional check.
You can pretend the South was in the wrong not to approach the Supreme Court for a ruling on secession, while at the same time pretend the federal government was in the right though they did not approach the Supreme Court for a ruling either. But that is a hollow argument. Particularly when it was so widely believed that secession was indeed a right retained by the States.
And even more so when the federal government had made it abundantly clear that the rulings of the Supreme Court would be ignored whenever those rulings came down on the other side.
I gave you a number of instances that might be considered a "first blow" by the Confederacy. You seem to think none of them qualify. That opens up an opportunity for *you* to point out what you consider the "first blow". Please state whatever you think it was.
The first blow you have mentioned was dated 12/27/60. Since that was not the earliest then I am not sure how that or the later blows you listed qualify as the "first blow."
Perhaps you shoud look a day earlier to find an earlier blow. If I didn't know better, I'd be inclined to point out that it appears to me you are hoping to sweep that one under the rug undetected.
Was that the first blow? Though it preceded the ones you listed, the blows had been passed around for quite a while by that time.
But in any event, the bombardment of Sumter was NOT the first blow. And neither were any of the dishonorable and treasonous seizures you refer to.
Neil, I appreciate this fully, I really do.
However, the question of Lee was introduced purely within the context of his opinion of secession.
It was erroneously stated that his view of secession was similar to Lincoln's. And that he only fought for the South because his beloved Virginia so sided.
However, that is a far cry from what the historical record shows, as Lee's words and actions attest.
That is all I'm saying.
Hal
Then you are clearly denying what Robert E. Lee himself said consistently from February to April of 1861. He said this in Texas to several people who asked him what he would do, including his good friend Charles Anderson (brother to the Major Anderson who commanded at Ft. Sumter). He wrote it in a letter to his son. He said it in Washington to Winfield Scott, commanding general of the US Army, after Lee had been offered the US field command. Since Lee believed it and declared it, why do you doubt his word and honor?
On the question of secession, Lee believed secession was revolution and treason. Lincoln believed the same. You have been shown this in Lee's own words. Again, since Lee believed it and declared it, why do you doubt his word and honor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
I gave you a number of instances that might be considered a "first blow" by the Confederacy. You seem to think none of them qualify. That opens up an opportunity for *you* to point out what you consider the "first blow". Please state whatever you think it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
The first blow you have mentioned was dated 12/27/60. Since that was not the earliest then I am not sure how that or the later blows you listed qualify as the "first blow."
Perhaps you shoud look a day earlier to find an earlier blow. If I didn't know better, I'd be inclined to point out that it appears to me you are hoping to sweep that one under the rug undetected.
Was that the first blow? Though it preceded the ones you listed, the blows had been passed around for quite a while by that time.
But in any event, the bombardment of Sumter was NOT the first blow. And neither were any of the dishonorable and treasonous seizures you refer to.
Hal
As you were asked, if you have an event to nominate, do so. Say something definite and clear. Otherwise, just admit you have none. Pick one, and stick to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
What the secessionists wanted to do was to break an agreement.
[quote=hawglips]What the secessionists did was repeal their independent ratification of the union of sovereign States.
In other words, they wanted to break the agreement they had signed. They admitted it -- it is the meaning of the very word secession -- why can't you? Talking in circles is really a great waste of time and will not do you any credit. Is acknowledging this fact really such a great problem for you?
I am not sure where the Constition states this requirement to get a Supreme Court ruling on the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
The Supreme Cout is to decide on the constitutionality of legislation. Like the legislation surrounding slavery and the new territories. That sort of thing.
No problem, here is the relevant portion of the US Constitution, Section III, Article 2:
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;-- between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Whatever else, the issue of a "right of secession" was a debatable one. It might or might not have existed in 1860. The secessionists insisted it did; many others (such as Robert E. Lee) said it did not. This is certainly included as "controversies between two or more states".
Now the secessionists asserted they could decide that for themselves. Whatever else, their act of doing so is unconstitutional. The states do not have the right to interpert the Constitution. The Supreme Court does, and it has the sole authority to decide the issues.
When the seceding states took their action, they violated this part of the Constitution, if no other, by usurping a power they had given to the Supreme Court. This violates their oaths to the Constitution.
I understand they didn't like having someone else have a say in what they wanted. They showed that clearly enough in how they tried to change the Constitution and government of the Confederacy. But that does not change the clear fact that they decided to do something unconstitutional while still part of the US, thus violating their oaths.
This is, BTW, modified by Amendment XI:
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
As a result, I presume they could not have used my original idea of a citizen starting the suit, and the attorney-general of one of the states would have had to start it. Still not much of a problem: SC just persuades GA or FL or some other state to bring the challenge.
[quote=trice]Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
What the secessionists wanted to do was to break an agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
What the secessionists did was repeal their independent ratification of the union of sovereign States.
In other words, they wanted to break the agreement they had signed. They admitted it -- it is the meaning of the very word secession -- why can't you? Talking in circles is really a great waste of time and will not do you any credit. Is acknowledging this fact really such a great problem for you?
Regards,
Tim
Tim,
The people of the Southern States were merely recognizing the prior violations of the Constitution by the people of the Northern States. The people of the Northern States had already deliberately nullified material provisions of the Constitution in the form of State laws that nullified the Fugitive Slave Law, and in the refusal of Northern Governors to extradite fugitives from justice. These were both material provisions of the compact. The majority of the people of the Southern States came to decide that independence from a people who harbored such hatred was best for all parties.
Why is self-determination so abhorrent to you?
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
The oath is to the Constitution, not the federal government. That is the problem. If the foes of the Constitution happen to control the federal government, there is no recourse left for its friends.
Come on, now. Another straw man set up so you can take pot-shots at it. No "foes of the Constitution" controlled the Federal government -- merely Americans who disagreed with secessionists -- and they were not even in control of the legislature or the court system. Basically you (and the secessionists) are saying the equivalent of "I taking my ball and going home!" and "You're not the boss of me!" when you don't like the way the game is going.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
You keep speaking of the Supreme Court as the final arbitrar for such questions.
According to the US Constitution, it is. So why did the secessionists not follow the Constitution they swore oaths to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Yet, the single question, according to Lincoln, that was THE sticking point between the sections, had to do with slavery in the new territories.
Certainly a difficult question.
Lincoln had not even been sworn into office yet when SC-GA-FL-AL-MS-LA-TX seceded. The Republicans, after the election of 1860, had a minority in the House and a minority in the Senate. The Supreme Court, in 1860, was 5 Southern and 4 Northern judges (the strong secessionist from Virginia was to die that year or early in 1861)
So since Lincoln was not even in office yet, the Republicans would not control the Congress in 1861-62, and the Supreme Court looked like a deadlock, just what had been done to the South that justified the violent, aggressive, unconstitutional course they adopted in December of 1860?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
Though the Supreme Court had ruled decisively on the question, Lincoln and the federal legislature refused to abide by that ruling.
Again, since Lincoln was not even in office yet, the Republicans would not control the Congress in 1861-62 and were not yet even in session, just what had been done to the South that justified the violent, aggressive, unconstitutional course they adopted in December of 1860?
On the question of secession, Lee believed secession was revolution and treason. Lincoln believed the same. You have been shown this in Lee's own words. Again, since Lee believed it and declared it, why do you doubt his word and honor?
I don't doubt his word or his honor. I think his word and his honor shows his feeling towards secession -- it was the lessor of two evils.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
