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.
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, what you call "breaking an agreement" is not what they, or I would call it.
Your spin is nothing more than that -- a spin. But I would be more inclined to call it what it was -- repeal of their ratification.
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.
Regards,
Tim
Tim, I thought this was pretty clear, "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."
I don't have a "first blow" on my list. It didn't unfold that way. You name one, I am reasonably sure that I can show you one that occurred before it.
In any event, there were certainly blows dealt out by the feds before Sumter or any of the dishonorable and treasonous "seizures" you list.
What the secessionists wanted to do was to break an agreement.
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.
Actually, I have never seen any evidence that the majority of Northerners felt that way, nor that they intended to use force against the Sseceding states, until the Confederacy attacked Ft. Sumter. In the rest of the country, that is the deciding moment and the "first blow" that started the war.
As to the Fugitive Slave law, I am sure you are aware of just how those acts violated the concept of "state's rights" -- a concept the Southern states were perfectly willing to violate in their own interest. Just as I am sure you realize just how outrageous the terms of it were, and of how white Southerners would have howled if those terms were applied to them.
That the South had things to complain about is certain. So did the North. But I note that the Courts consistently supported the South on slave property rights, and the Federal government was interfering in state and local affairs on the behalf of slaveowners. And when John Brown raided Harper's Ferry, Federal troops came and subdued him, turning him over for trial.
The desire to end slavery is clear enough for many in the North (as it was for many in Europe, or at least England). The economic impact to slaveowners is clearly worrisome. But where does anything that was done actually rise to a level to justify secession? Men like Robert E. Lee did not think it had even after 7 states had already seceded, and felt their act was simple revolution and treason. I would agree with his thought as the nation hung on the cusp of war. Don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Why is self-determination so abhorrent to you?
I find nothing abhorent in it, nor have I claimed to do so. As a result, your statement is a false one. You seem to read things in to suit yourself, and restate them into polemics to satisfy your own position. Why is that?
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.
That may be your opinion, but not mine, nor Lee's or Davis' nor Calhoun's nor Rhett's nor Vallandigham's etc.
Quote:
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.
And your point is...?
Quote:
So why did the secessionists not follow the Constitution they swore oaths to?
They did.
I think the more pertinent question is, why didn't Lincoln and the federal government?
Quote:
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?
Regards, Tim
I am unfamiliar with any "violent, aggressive, unconstitutional course [those states] adopted in December of 1860," so I fear I am unable to address that question.
However, perhaps you can explain the unconstitutional course taken by the federal government as it pertains to the Supreme Court ruling on slavery in the new territories, for starters?
Tim, what you call "breaking an agreement" is not what they, or I would call it.
Your spin is nothing more than that -- a spin. But I would be more inclined to call it what it was -- repeal of their ratification.
Hal
Then you simply do not understand what secession is. They did. They wanted out of the United States, an agreement they had willfully entered and benefitted from for many years, because they felt threatened. They did not want to arrange an agreement beforehand. They wanted to act unilaterally, grabbing whatever they could lay their hands on, and then bluster and threaten from a position of possession if they negotiated at all on payment and divying up of responsibilities and debts.
It is much like being in a business arrangement where your partner wants to change all the locks and back up a truck to the warehouse before you decide who gets what. It may be a lot of things, but it sure isn't nice.
Regards,
Tim
Tim, what you call "breaking an agreement" is not what they, or I would call it.
Your spin is nothing more than that -- a spin. But I would be more inclined to call it what it was -- repeal of their ratification.
Hal
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Then you simply do not understand what secession is. They did.
I don't? But they did?
Note whether your choice of words or mine best fits theirs:
"We, the people of the State of North Carolina in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated."
"First. We, the people of the State of Tennessee, waiving any expression of opinion as to the abstract doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and independent people, to alter, reform, or abolish our form of government in such manner as we think proper, do ordain and declare that all the laws and ordinances by which the State of Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America are hereby abrogated and annulled, and that all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws and ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the United States, and to absolve ourselves from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred thereto; and do hereby henceforth become a free, sovereign, and independent State."
"We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved."
"Section 1. That all the laws and ordinances by which the said State of Mississippi became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and that all obligations on the part of the said State or the people thereof to observe the same be withdrawn, and that the said State doth hereby resume all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws or ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the said United States, and is absolved from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred to the said Federal Union, and shall from henceforth be a free, sovereign, and independent State."
"We, the people of the State of Florida, in convention assembled, do solemnly ordain, publish, and declare, That the State of Florida hereby withdraws herself from the confederacy of States existing under the name of the United States of America and from the existing Government of the said States; and that all political connection between her and the Government of said States ought to be, and the same is hereby, totally annulled, and said Union of States dissolved; and the State of Florida is hereby declared a sovereign and independent nation; and that all ordinances heretofore adopted, in so far as they create or recognize said Union, are rescinded; and all laws or parts of laws in force in this State, in so far as they recognize or assent to said Union, be, and they are hereby, repealed."
"We the people of the State of Georgia in Convention assembled do declare and ordain and it is hereby declared and ordained that the ordinance adopted by the State of Georgia in convention on the 2nd day of Jany. in the year of our Lord seventeen hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the constitution of the United States of America was assented to, ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the general assembly of this State, ratifying and adopting amendments to said constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded and abrogated. "
"We, the people of the State of Louisiana, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance passed by us in convention on the 22d day of November, in the year eighteen hundred and eleven, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America and the amendments of the said Constitution were adopted, and all laws and ordinances by which the State of Louisiana became a member of the Federal Union, be, and the same are hereby, repealed and abrogated; and that the union now subsisting between Louisiana and other States under the name of "The United States of America" is hereby dissolved."
"We, the people of the State of Texas, by delegates in convention assembled, do declare and ordain that the ordinance adopted by our convention of delegates on the 4th day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union with other States, and became a party to the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America," be, and is hereby, repealed and annulled; that all the powers which, by the said compact, were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government are revoked and resumed; that Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States or the government thereof."
"Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain, That the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying and adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State."
"Therefore we, the people of the State of Arkansas, in convention assembled, do hereby declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the "ordinance and acceptance of compact" passed and approved by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas on the 18th day of October, A.D. 1836, whereby it was by said General Assembly ordained that by virtue of the authority vested in said General Assembly by the provisions of the ordinance adopted by the convention of delegates assembled at Little Rock for the purpose of forming a constitution and system of government for said State, the propositions set forth in "An act supplementary to an act entitled `An act for the admission of the State of Arkansas into the Union, and to provide for the due execution of the laws of the United States within the same, and for other purposes,'" were freely accepted, ratified, and irrevocably confirmed, articles of compact and union between the State of Arkansas and the United States, and all other laws and every other law and ordinance, whereby the State of Arkansas became a member of the Federal Union, be, and the same are hereby, in all respects and for every purpose herewith consistent, repealed, abrogated, and fully set aside; and the union now subsisting between the State of Arkansas and the other States, under the name of the United States of America, is hereby forever dissolved."
Quote:
They wanted out of the United States, an agreement they had willfully entered and benefitted from for many years, because they felt threatened. They did not want to arrange an agreement beforehand.
Tim, with all due respect, you can't be serious!
Quote:
They wanted to act unilaterally, grabbing whatever they could lay their hands on, and then bluster and threaten from a position of possession if they negotiated at all on payment and divying up of responsibilities and debts.
Since you seem to think that the northern states should retain possession of federal facilities within the borders of the southern states, it follows that the federal facilities within the borders of the northern states should therefore be handed over to the South? Correct?
If not, then I cannot comprehend your logic. Unless you subscribe to the "North-god" "wicked South" theory?
Quote:
It is much like being in a business arrangement where your partner wants to change all the locks and back up a truck to the warehouse before you decide who gets what. It may be a lot of things, but it sure isn't nice.
Regards,
Tim
I thought it was more like that other voluntary union, a marraige --
“I love the Union as I love my wife. But if my wife should ask for and insist upon a separation, she would have it though it broke my heart.” ~ John Quincy Adams
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
That may be your opinion, but not mine, nor Lee's or Davis' nor Calhoun's nor Rhett's nor Vallandigham's etc.
Hal,
Again, remember the "entire picture" of Robert E. Lee's letter. Why do you try to hide from his word's so much? What do you think he meant when he said secession was nothing but revolution and equated it with treason? Why can you not accept his opinion as he said it?
But aside from your refusal to see things like that, so what? This is a free country and people have a right to believe all sorts of things. It is in taking action that you can violate the law or the rights of others. Talking about secession, believing in secession, arguing about secession violates no law. Advocating secession might, depending on how you did it. Unilaterally taking matters into your own hands, using threats of force, grabbing property and finally opening fire on your fellow citizens -- well, that is either treasonable insurrection or aggressive foreign war, depending on whether you win or not.
Calhoun was an ultra-nationalist up to 1827. He became an anti-nationalist after that, because he saw a threat to slavery. He is, in effect, the embodiment of both halves of Key's Paradox (V. O. Key, Jr., "Southern Politics in State and Nation", 1949):
"Of books about the South there is no end. Nor will there be so long as the South remains the region with the most distinctive character and tradition. Yet in all the writing about the South there exists no comprehensive analysis of its politics. Instead we have relied on a pair of caricatures for our understanding of southern politics. On one hand, regional leaders are described as statesmen of the old school, sound in their economics, devoted to the Constitution, and ever alert against subversive and foolish proposals. The contrary picture is of a southern ruling class dedicated to reaction, intent on repression of little people, both black and white, and allied with the northern finance in a conspiracy to grind down the masses "
I am looking for a place in the middle of that, where I think the truth resides about most people in the South of that day. That is where men like Lee resided, trying to do what they saw as right, torn by divided loyalties, and forced to choose one course or another that they could not agree with entirely.
You seem to want to see only cardboard cut-outs of these men, with only the views that suit you. I have rarely found that approach matches well with real people, and then generally only with extremists like John Brown or Rhett to any degree. Calhoun is so contrary in different parts of his political life that he could be listed on both sides of Key's Paradox.
Again, remember the "entire picture" of Robert E. Lee's letter.
I am puzzled as to why you insist on a single letter to show the entire feelings of Robert E. Lee on the abstract theory of secession?
Lee's words and deeds showed that he felt secession to be the lessor of two evils -- so when forced to choose -- he chose the lessor one -- to fight for right of secession.
Note whether your choice of words or mine best fits theirs:
"We, the people of the State of North Carolina in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated."
Yep, that's them saying they are breaking the agreement. Which part of that do you miss? Essentially, they are trying to say "we take it back".
The issue of the "right of secession" is whether or not they have the right and the power to do it. It was a legal question of much debate. Some people thought the answer was yes and some thought no and some were not sure. But it is absolutely certain that, by agreement, only the Supreme Court had the power to ==DECIDE== the issue. All of the states had agreed to that.
All of the state and federal officials had sworn personal oaths to abide by that. All the citizens had obligations to abide by it as well -- just as any American citizen does. If they did not wish to do so they could resign their office and give up their citizenship -- but that would not release the state from the agreement. (It is also a really bad choice for individuals in international law: being "stateless" means no one will look out for your interests in most cases. Best to have another country ready to accept you before you do this.)
Now personally, I think they had a 50% chance of a decision in the court favoring them. They either a) felt the odds were much worse or b) resented following the Constitution. But no matter: they decided to reject that option. They chose to act without using the law. They chose force, and initiated acts of violence to accomplish their goals. And then, when they were faced with an angry and determined country insulted by their actions, we had a war.
Fine with me. They rejected all their peaceful options, and chose trial by combat, the "natural right of revolution" as it was known in those days. But that just means they have to win their independence on the field of battle. They failed to do that, and in doing so, managed to mess up their chance for a legal resolution without bloodshed.
And so we had a Civil War. And the question was settled in blood at their insistence. Fine again: no "right of secession" is now acknowledged to exist in the United States, and subsequent Supreme Court decisions seem to affirm that (such as White v. Texas, etc.) But all this caterwauling about it seems distasteful to me. If they wanted to establish a Constitutional "right" existed, they went about it wrong.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
