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.
Tim - "Or an 'invasion' of a state that is either a) in violent insurrection against or b) at war with the US is the cause for the previous six months of Confederate violence?"
What I'm arguing for here is a sense of proportionality from you. You seem to think that minor acts justify major ones. Or perhaps that enough minor acts justify one major one. At what point you have enough excuses for Lincoln to act is a matter upon which we'd likely disagree.
Let's see. "Minor" Confederate aggressive acts included: seizure of funds, seizure of property and revenue, seizure of US Customs vessels, use and threat of use of armed force against American citizens, besieging 2 US forts, seizing nine more (plus other posts and arsenals) before they attacked Ft. Sumter, firing on US flag ships, interning 1100 US troops peacefully complying with an agreement to withdraw from Texas, assault with intent to kill on the garrison of Ft. Sumter. Then, once the Confederates do all that, further violent and aggressive acts in AR, NC, and VA, the "invasion" of Maryland by VA forces, seizure of the Norfolk Navy Yard and Harpers Ferry and still more posts, attempts to arm and encourage insurrectionists in states still in the Union, etc.
Yet when the US finally does something about all this, it is a "major" act and unjustified? I find that unbelievable. I see all those Confederate or secessionist acts as "major". Any nation would regard them as things to list as causes in a declaration of war upon another nation, or proof of violent rebellion if they occurred within their own nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Upon review of the Constitution, I see no authority there for Lincoln's forcible repatriation of the seceeded states. If you do, please share.
In Lincoln's view, there was no "repatriation" going on because he did not believe the seceding states had ever left, nor that any such right or power existed. Just as a great many other Americans believed at the time that no such right existed, ever had existed, or had ever been intended to exist by the Founders. People like Robert E. Lee, for example, believed that about "secession" even while they also felt force should not be used against other states.
The President is obligated to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". If he feels that they are being violated, he must take action or fail in the responsibilities of his office. The Militia Act gave him the authority he used in response to violent assault in April 1861 to call for forces.
From the Militia Act of 1792: And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session. [Note: emphasis is in the original act of Congress]
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
BTW, I don't recall a declaration of war against the seceeded states - which at least would be something constitutional - do you. Again - secession is not, by definition, insurrection.
Secession, by definition under the Constitution, is not anything at all and such a "right" may or may not exist as seen in 1860. As long as the US maintained the states were in rebellion, there was no need at all for a declaration of war, and no way to declare one against a nation the US did not recognize.
Now Lincoln did not have the power to recognize the seceding states as having actually left under the law. Congress might have had it, but that's very questionable (just as the admission of Texas in 1845 is very questionable). If you actually want to accomplish secession in a clearly constitutional manner, you would need either a Supreme Court decision or an amendment to the Constitution.
Of course, the most likely way to get that done would be for the seceding states to delay their violent course of action, act as responsible parts of the Union, and use the strengths the Constitution gave them to get their purpose accomplished. That, of course, might have required a few years, solved a lot of problems -- and avoided the war the South rushed into.
I've read Tx. v. White. I know what it says. It is wrong. The word 'perpetual' is NOT in the Constitution. I've never seen, and will never see, a dictionary say that the words 'more perfect' mean the same as 'perpetual.' And the USSCt. telling me that the sun rises in the west does not make it so.
If you have read Texas v. White, you have clearly not seen what the Chief Justice said as he said it. At no point does he say that the word "perpetual" is in the Constitution. He says that the United States is a "Perpetual Union" established by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union that existed before the Constitution -- and it was, and the Constitution itself acknowledges that the United States existed before the Constitution was in force.
What he says -- and what I have pointed out -- is that the "more perfect Union" of the Constitution is that already existing "Perpetual Union". That's a no-brainer. His conclusion from that can be questioned, but the fact of the pre-existence of the United States as a "Perpetual Union" cannot be.
You can also question what "Perpetual Union" means. It is clear from the Civil War, the various Supreme Court decisions, and the XIV Amendment that the "right of secession" as attempted by the states of the Confederacy in 1860-61 was denied de facto and de jure. That does not mean there is no way out. That means a state does not get to take the unilateral route the secessionists tried and need to act within the Union.
No offense taken. Its just that I don't recall ever even thinking that opinions on the subject are one-sided. It may be though, that my consistency in maintaining that the Constitution leaves the question of secession to the states, is read to mean that such is the only opinion that could be formed.
"You and I both know it makes no such statement or inference." It also doesn't say that states may pass traffic laws. But it has that effect, the same as it does with secession, by operation and effect of the residuary clause which is the 10th Amend. I hope I've been equally consistent on that point.
"Yet when the US finally does something about all this, it is a 'major' act and unjustified?" FWIW, I'll offer my dividing line. None of the south's acts had the purpose or intent of supplanting the existing gov'ts in the north. In other words, the south was satisfied to leave the northern states and the US to their existing gov'ts. Can you say the same for the north? Of course not.
"In Lincoln's view, there was no 'repatriation' going on because he did not believe the seceding states had ever left...." Lincoln's 'ostritch' approach to the seceeded states notwithstanding, the reality is that they did secede and did form their own gov'ts and did act as separate countries until forcibly repatriated by the bigger gun.
"That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state...." The laws of the US have no force or effect in other countries, and that's what each of the former states were upon secession. In other words, they were no longer states, and Lincoln's decision not to recognize that is no better than him saying that the sun rises in the west. I prefer reality. The Militia act to which you refer authorized no force against the seceeded states. It could not because the Constitution authorizes no such use of force.
"Secession, by definition under the Constitution, is not anything at all...." Please point me to the text of the Constitution which so provides.
"As long as the US maintained the states were in rebellion, there was no need at all for a declaration of war...." Gobbledigook. What any good ostritch might say.
"If you actually want to accomplish secession in a clearly constitutional manner, you would need either a Supreme Court decision or an amendment to the Constitution." You're still ignoring the 10th Amend. By its operation and effect, secession is a question left for the states to decide. The USSCt. has no jurisdiction to decide differently, and the Constitution requires no amendment for a state to exercise its own sovereign powers. Your suggestion that a USSCt. decision or constitutional amendment is necessary would require a substantial rewriting of the Constitution to be accurate.
"...act as responsible parts of the Union, and use the strengths the Constitution gave them to get their purpose accomplished." The seceeding states exercised their power of secession to accomplish their self-determination to no longer be a part of the Union, responsible or otherwise, and to no longer be bound to the Constitution. They didn't want to play nicely or nastily; they didn't want to play at all. That's their right.
I agree that, had the south decided to play nice, there's a small chance that their independence could have been recognized and accomplished without hostilities.
"What he says -- and what I have pointed out -- is that the 'more perfect Union' of the Constitution is that already existing 'Perpetual Union'. That's a no-brainer. His conclusion from that can be questioned, but the fact of the pre-existence of the United States as a 'Perpetual Union' cannot be. The AoC are no longer of any force or effect. What he did was to add a word to the Constitution - perpetual - that is not there. Hence, he's wrong. Art. V is the exclusive method to add words to the Constitution, as the Constitution provides NO other method.
"You can also question what 'Perpetual Union' means." I could. But, I prefer not to enter into word games. Had the Constitution actually said that the Union was perpetual, that would be close enough for me to say that state secession was prohibited. It would have been clearer, though, to say that 'No state may secede from the Union.' They didn't say either.
"...the "right of secession" as attempted by the states of the Confederacy in 1860-61 was denied de facto and de jure." Might makes right? Its just not what the Constitution says.
"You can also question what 'Perpetual Union' means." I could. But, I prefer not to enter into word games. Had the Constitution actually said that the Union was perpetual, that would be close enough for me to say that state secession was prohibited. It would have been clearer, though, to say that 'No state may secede from the Union.' They didn't say either.
Russ, if I may, Tim will probably come back with the response that the Union under the Articles of Confederation was described as "perpetual," and since the Constitution forms "a more perfect Union," the attribute of perpetuality under the AoC is inherited by the Union under the Constitution.
Before he responds, let me head that off at the pass, and ask him to take into account the words of Article VII of the Constitution: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." (Emphasis added).
This provisions is a result of the debate in the Philadelphia Convention on ratification. On August 30th, the delegates debated the wording of Article VII, but the proposed Article VII had left blank the number of State conventions required. The were trying to determine how many States' conventions would be required for the Constitution to take effect, and what was the status of those that didn't ratify. (Remembering that the AoC required unanimous approval of any change to the change to take effect, and that Rhode Island had refused to even send a delegate to Philadelphia.) The delegates had the following exchange (from Madison’s notes on the Philadelphia Convention):
Mr. Dickinson asked whether the concurrence of Congress is to be essential to the establishment of the system, whether the refusing States in the Confederacy could be deserted-and whether Congress could concur in contravening the system under which they acted? (Note: the AoC).
Mr. Madison, remarked that if the blank should be filled with "seven," “eight,” or "nine" – the Constitution as it stands might be put in force over the whole body of the people, tho' less than a majority of them should ratify it. (Note this for later)
Mr. Wilson. As the Constitution stands, the States only which ratify can be bound. We must he said in this case go to the original powers of Society. The House on fire must be extinguished, without a scrupulous regard to ordinary rights.
Mr. Butler was in favor of "nine." He revolted at the idea, that one or two States should restrain the rest from consulting their safety.
Mr. Carrol moved to fill the blank with "the thirteen," unanimity being necessary to dissolve the existing confederacy which had been unanimously established.
Mr. King thought this amendt. necessary, otherwise as the Constitution now stands it will operate on the whole though ratified by a part only." (the inclusion of Article VII meant that the Constitution only applied to those nine, or more, States whose conventions had ratified).
So they decided that nine conventions would be sufficient, and those States whose conventions refused to ratify would not stop the others from “consulting their safety,” as Butler put it. Even though Mr. Carrol had reminded the Philadelphia Convention that the AoC required unanimity to changes to take effect, the Convention decided that, if nine State conventions wanted to form the new Union under the Constitution, it would take effect, despite the AoC requirement for unanimity. In other words, when confronted by the express article in the AoC requiring unanimity, the will of the people in the States trumped the AoC. The Philadelphia Convention wanted the will of the people of each State to determine who would be in the new Union. The Union being "perpetual" was a goal, not a binding provision of the Union under the AoC.
More to follow...
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
So, what would be the status of the Final Four? In the case of Virginia and New York, it did not really matter, since they ratified before the new Constitution took effect, and the new government took office. But in the cases of Rhode Island and North Carolina, the record indicates quite clearly that once nine had ratified, these two States were out of the Union, even though they had not consented to the dissolving of the AoC.
Here are a few examples from the historical record of the time:
1. Recognition of prominent citizens that NC and RI were not part of the Union:
a. Washington, writing as a private citizen, but one who had been a delegate to Philadelphia, and should know what Article VII means, wrote to Lincoln on October 22nd 1788: "The constant report is, that North Carolina will soon accede to the new Union." Italics added. Note that Washington sees that NC is not then in the “new Union.” (Writings of George Washington, Vol. 30, pg. 118.)
b. Joseph Jones to Madison, May 10, 1789 (after the seating of the new general government): "R. Island not being subject to the regulation (the impost debate) & so convenient a place to the eastern and N. York States may interpose difficulties to the faithfull (sic) collection of the revenues and North Carolina in this quarter wod. do the same but for the obstacles to navigation. These interruptions will be only temporary as I presume they cannot long remain out of the Union." (italics added) (Madison Papers, vol. 11, fol. 59a.) The clear implication is that NC was not then "in the Union."
c. President Washington wrote to the Governor of North Carolina June 19th, 1789: "I most earnestly implore the divine benediction and guidance in the Counsels, which are shortly to be taken by their Delegates on the subject of the most momentous consequence, I mean the political relation which is to subsist hereafter between the State of North Carolina and the States now in union under the new general government." Washington, Writings, vol. 30, pg. 347n. Washington, as President of the US, saw North Carolina as not being "in union under the new government."
2. North Carolina and Rhode Island recognised that their status was independent and not part of the Union under the Constitution:
a. Letter from Edenton North Carolina of May 4th, 1789, published in the Edenton newspaper: "Though we are not in the union, we are not the less attentive to all the proceedings of Congress. Some of the regulations proposed in the new revenue bill might be of use to the commerce of this State if we formed part of the Union; as matters are circumstanced, they must injure us greatly." (italics added) An editorial from the State Gazette of NC, June 4th, 1789.
c. Congratulatory letter from the Governor and State Council of North Carolina to Washington on May 10th, 1789: "Though this State be not yet a member of the Union under the new Form of Government, we look forward with the pleasing hope of its shortly becoming such." (italics added) Washington Letter Book, Papers, pg. 334. The obvious implication is that the Governor of NC considers his States not to be a member of the Union.
3. Congressional recognition of Congress that NC and RI were not part of the Union.
a. On June 5th, 1789, when Mr. Benson of NY proposed that Congress should invite Rhode Island to convene a Convention to consider ratification of the US Constitution, Mr. Madison objected that it would be an attempt at intimidation and thus, improper. To which, Mr. Ames responded "I should be glad to know if any gentleman considers the State of Rhode Island dissevered from the Union; a maritime State, situated in the most convenient manner for the purposes of smuggling, and defrauding our revenue. Surely a moment's reflection will induce the House to take measures to secure this object. Do gentlemen imagine that State will join the Union? If they do, what is the injury arising from the adoption of the resolution intended to be submitted to the committee (Mr. Benson's)? Is there any impropriety in desiring them (RI's citizens) to consider a question which they have not yet decided? It has been suggested, by an honorable gentlemen (Madison), that this desire will operate as a demand. If a wish of Congress can bring them into the Union, why should we decline to express such a wish." (emphasis added) (Annals of Congress, House, 1st Congress, 1st Session, pg. 439.) The impact of this clearly was that Congress, at least Mr. Ames, did not see RI as being in the Union, but desired it very much, to prevent smuggling from thwarting tariff collection by using RI as an intermediate base.
b. In May, 1790, when Congress had had enough of Rhode Island's intransigence, the Senate passed a bill to prohibit all intercourse with RI (Rhode Island domestic products had been exempt from US tariffs up to this point, although foreign products imported into the US through RI were subject to duties) and to authorize the President to demand that RI pay her share of the country's war debt – $27,000. Mr. Maclay of Pennsylvania wrote of this bill: "Let accounts be settled and Rhode Island has a right to be charged with, and she has a right to pay her proportion of the cost of independence. By the present resolutions, the attack comes visibly from us. She is furnished with an apology, and will stand justified to all the world if we [she?] should enter into any foreign engagements." Then on May 11th, "The Rhode Island resolutions were taken up. I was twice up against these resolutions. They admitted on all hands that Rhode Island was independent, and did not deny that the measures now taken were meant to force her into adoption of the Constitution of the United States." (italics added) Journal of William Maclay, United States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791, pg. 259. Implication: "give the US treasury $27,000 for your share of the war debt and you are on your own." But no one suggested invading Rhode Island and forcing her into the Union. Such an idea would have been ludicrous to the Founders.
I would direct the attention of my unconditional Unionist friends to the phrase, "they admitted on all hands that Rhode Island was independent." Please note that this was in 1790, and thus after the "perpetual" nature of the Union under the Articles of Confederation was declared. The tactics of the Senate were to acknowledge RI’s independence if she did not ratify, but insist that she take her share of the US war debt with her. Madison and Page opposed even trying to use economic intimidation in order to gain the ratification of RI, because it would taint the free will Madison believed should rule a state's decision to ratify or not. On May 26th, Page said on the floor of the House, "Should this bill pass, and should Rhode Island adopt the Constitution, she will come with so bad a grace into the Union that she must be ashamed when she enters it." (Annals of Congress, 1st Congress, 2nd Session, pg. 1672) RI did, however, respond to this intimidation, and, on May 29th, she ratified. But please note that the Senators did not in any way indicate that the United States should invade RI and force her to ratify. Joining the Union was the decision of the people of each State, perpetuity declarations of the Articles of Confederation notwithstanding.
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
Tim -
"You can also question what 'Perpetual Union' means." I could. But, I prefer not to enter into word games. Had the Constitution actually said that the Union was perpetual, that would be close enough for me to say that state secession was prohibited. It would have been clearer, though, to say that 'No state may secede from the Union.' They didn't say either.
"...the "right of secession" as attempted by the states of the Confederacy in 1860-61 was denied de facto and de jure." Might makes right? Its just not what the Constitution says.
Had the Constitution plainly stated that secession was strictly forbidden, I doubt many colonies would have joined the Union. The bloody Revolution and the resulting cherished independence was still fresh on everyone's mind at the time the Constitution was written. A couple of the colonies even wrote into their constitutions that they reserved the right to revert to self-government. These constitutions were ratified and accepted by the Union.
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson
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
Every State that joined the Union DID know it was joining and that secession would not be allowed without the consent of all.
The theory that they didn't know is more of a modern-day complaint than it was at the time of the debate on the Constitution.
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
The Cubs are the only Chicago team I ever followed.
Clearly a case of overdoing "underdog" support.
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
