slavery is at the bottom of everything they were worried about

[trice]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I agree with that there was certainly a need for some sort of alliance or union, but not necessarily one which disallowed any state to remove herself if it didn't work for her.

It is not the matter of being able to leave the Union I object to. I have pointed out many times several different routes by which that might be accomplished.

I do absolutely reject the unilateral, violent, no-body-but-us-has-a-say-in-anything method the seceding states of 1861 tried. No legal system could possibly continue to exist if any such "right of secession" were allowed. As men like Robert E. Lee said, what they wanted was nothing but revolution and anarchy.

What I really do not understand is why anyone could possibly think such a "right" existed under the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Understood, but claiming the right to revert to self-government wasn't a condition being demanded. It was merely restating and clarifing the understanding that the Federal government would have only the powers delegated to it by the states and that this was one of the state's rights that wasn't being given up. This was the chance for the Union to say, "Hold it. We do not accept you into the Union on those conditions. You may not revert to self-government unless we say so." But the Union didn't do that and these states were accepted with the understanding that they retained the right to return to self-government.

Please note that the Union never got to even seriously consider the question before they were attacked by the secessionists. No such unilateral right to do violence against your fellow citizens can be allowed.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Yes, exactly. That is why any state had the right to secede, not only the three that expressly made that point.

Some people claim so. I very much doubt any court would hold to such a belief.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Here I would have to disagree. All states believed they retained all of their power of independence other than that which they had agreed to turn over to the Union.

Secession is not independence.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

No state believed they retained that right for themselves and other states didn't. Equal footing and all that.

Again, independence does not imply a right to break your word whenever you feel like it, grabbing all the property you can lay hands on as you go. That is all that the "right of secession" as practiced in 1860-61 comes down to.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

The New England states had threatened secession prior to the Southern states and I don't recall anyone standing up to say they couldn't do that or that they had no right to do that or even that they had to ask someone's permission.

They did. Strongly. The general public seems to have thought of the members as people plotting treason.

Thomas Ritche, editor of the Richmond Enquirer: “The same formality which forged the links of the Union is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficacy of its constitutional laws, is Treason—Treason to all intents and purposes.”

There were only three states (MA-RI-CT) officially represented at the Hartford Confvention. The final report denounced some Madison administration policies and recommended seven amendments to the Constitution. While some people there certainly talked about secession, there was no attempt to secede voted. However, the MA legislature did send 3 representatives down to Washington to see what terms could be arranged. They arrived at the same time as the news of Andrew Jackson's victory at New Orleans; the delegates had the good sense to turn around and go back to Boston.

Even well before that and speaking of the much weaker "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union", Thomas Jefferson said: “When any one State in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compel them to obedience. Congress would probably exercise long patience before they would recur to force; but if the case ultimately required it, they would use that recurrence.”

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I believe all states understood that secession was a right of the states not forbidden by the Constitution.

James Madison, letter to Edward Everett: the Consttitution is formed "by the people in each of the States, acting in their highest sovereign capacity.... Being thus derived from the same source as the Constitutions of the States, it...is as much a Constitution, in the strict sense of the term, within its prescribed sphere, as the Constitutions of the States are within their respective spheres; but with this obvious & essential difference, that being a compact among the States in their highest sovereign capacity, and constituting the people thereof one people for certain purposes, it cannot be altered or annulled at the will of the States individually, as the Constitution of a State may be at its individual will."

James Wilson, speaking to the PA Ratification Convention: "the sovereignty resides in the people, they have not parted with it; they have only dispensed such portions of power as were conceived necessary for the public welfare…. In order to recognize this leading principle, the proposed system sets out with a declaration, that its existence depends upon the supreme authority of the people alone…. When the principle is once settled, that the people are the source of authority, the consequence is, that they may take from the subordinate governments with which they have hitherto trusted them, and place those powers in the general government, if it is thought that they will be productive of more good…. I have no idea, that a safe system of power, in the government, sufficient to manage the general interest of the United States, could be drawn from any other source, or rested in any other authority than that of the people at large, and I consider this authority as the rock on which this structure will stand."

Chief Justice Marshall: the Constitution "proceeds directly from the people; is ‘ordained and established’ in the name of the people.... It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the State governments. The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties.... The government of the Union, then…is, emphatically, and truly, a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.... [T]he government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action."

Lots of people felt quite differently about it.

Regards,
Tim

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by russ_aukerman

Rose -

However, I must respectfully disagree that "The United States accepted these terms and they were binding." The US accepted the ratification, but I don't believe that terms of the ratification documents of the several states became binding. The reason I don't believe that is because the Constitution, by Art. V, provides the exclusive method for amending the Constitution. Were ideas from ratification documents intended to be part of the Constitution, it would so provide. But if that were the case, it would allow 1 state to add terms binding on all. Art. V tells me that such was not the intent.

Russ, I probably could have chosen my words better. Let me clarify. What I meant was that the Constitution was a two way street and the Union as well as the states had an obligation that was binding to the other. The ratifying docs of NY, VA, and RI only reiterated, so that there was no misunderstanding, their right to regain self-government under the tenth amendment and those states believed that the Union was legally bound to honor the compact.

Respectfully,
Rose

[unionblue]

From the book, America's Constitution, by Akhil Reed Amar:

PART I

"The prominence of the Preamble (of the US Constitution) also made it a perfect place to renounce the basic structure of the Articles (of Confederation). Although states would enter the Constitution as true sovereigns, they would not remain so after ratification. The formation of a "more perfect Union" would itself end each state's sovereign status and would prohibit future unilateral secession, in plain contrast to the decidedly less-than-perfect union under the Articles. True, the Preamble did not expressly proclaim that its new, more perfect union would be "perpetual"--and for good reason: Why borrow a word from the Articles of Confederation that did not quite mean what it said in that document, a word that was being thrust aside by the very act of constitution itself? Thus, the Constitution signaled its decisive break with the Articles' regime of state sovereignty and false federal perpetuity in other ways.

One notable Preamble word marking the metamorphosis was "Constitution." Not a "league," however firm; not a "confederacy" or a "confederation"; not a compact among "sovereign" states--all these high-profile and legally freighted words from the Articles were conspicuously absent from the Preamble and every other operative part of the Constitution. The new text proposed a fundamentally different legal framework. Henceforth America would have a written "Constitution" deriving from a continental people, unmistakably styled after earler state prototypes, like the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780. As these state constitutions, exalted texts in confederate America, had exemplified state-based popular sovereignty under the Articles, so now a new United States Constitution--the new supreme law of the land--would shape a new continental nation whose sovereign would be truly continental people. Lest there be any doubt, later parts of the document precisely defined the status of "this Constitution," a self-referential phrase that appeared several more times--most importantly in Articles V and VI (the only places where the phrase popoed up more than once) and in Article VII, the Preamble's matching bookend.

Article VI specified how "this Constitution," once ratified, would stack up against current and future state constitutions. For example, what should happen if the people of South Carolina, having adopted "this Constitution" in 1788, reconvened at some later time to amend their state constitution, and in that convention, adopted an amendment purporting to repudiate the federal Constitution in whole or in part? In a subsequent lawsuit, which law would a state judge be obliged to follow? If the people of South Carolina were sovereign, the answer would plainly be the state constitution as amended. The sovereign people's right to alter or abolish their government at any time would remain a core attribute of their sovereignty, and their judicial agents--state judges--would be bound to enforce their will and judgment even if their amendment might be alleged by other sovereigns to violate an earlier treaty under international law. Yet the Article VI supremacy clause explicitly compelled even state judges to disregard the attempted amendment--a rule plainly inconsistent with the post-ratification sovereignty of the people of each state: "This Constitution...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Surrounding Article VI and reinforcing its plain meaning, Article VII and V conspicuously contrasted the rules for constitutional ratification with the rules for subsequent constitutional amendment--a contrast that made it plain that the new Constitution spelled the end of state sovereignty for all states that might choose to join. As of mid-July 1788, ten states had ratified the Constitution, thereby guaranteeing that the document would go into effect in those states under Article VII. New Yorkers had yet to ratify, and Article VII made it clear that the people of that state were a distinct sovereign entity free to vote down the new Constitution and ignore it. Yet Article V put New Yorkers on clear notice: If they chose to ratify the Constitution in convention, they would lose their freedom to disregard subsequent constitutional proposals agreed to by conventions of three-fourths of the states, whose ratifications would suffice to make future amendments "valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution" even in non ratifying states. Nowhere was the Constitution's break with the Articles of Confederation and all other purely confederate regimes more dramatic. Simply put, Article VII recognized the sovereign right (or at least the sovereign power) of different states in a flawed confederacy to go their separate ways; but Articles V and VI extinguished the right and power of unilateral secession for each state populace that joined the Constitution's new, more perfect union, thereby merging itself into the continental sovereignty of the American people.

Anti-Federalists across the continent got the message and sounded the alarm. In Massachusetts, Samuel Nasson pointed to the Preamble as proof that the Constitution would effect a "perfect consolidation of the whole Union" that would "destroy" the Bay State's status as "a sovereign and independent" entity. The influential Federal Farmer warned that when a state populace "shall adopt the proposed constitution, it will be their last and supreme act" qua sovereign. New York's Brutus complained that the Constitution would not be "a compact" among states but rather would create a "union of the people of the United States considered" as "one great body politic." Pennsylvania Anti-Federalists put fourth a similar reading of the Preamble. Meanwhile, Maryland's Luther Martin advised his audience of the strongly nationalist logic of the Constitution's treason clause, which made allegiance to the United States paramount over allegiance to a single state in the event of armed conflict between the two.

Patrick Henry, true to form, was the bluntest of all as he led the charge against the Constitution in Virginia. "The fate...of America may depend on this...Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing--the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of American." If "the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states." This difference, Henry warned, would profoundly limit the rights of future Virginians to act on their own. "Suppose the people of Viriginia should wish to alter their government; can a majority of them do it? No; because they are connected with other men, or, in other words, consolidated with other states...This government is not a Virginian, but an American government." Because the American Revolution of 1776--in which he had played no small part--had ultimately made Virginia free and independent, the proposed Constitution was "a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain."

In response, the Federalists refined their critics' terminology while confirming that the new union would indeed be indivisible. The Constitution, Federalists stressed, hardly annihilated the states or melted thirteen peoples into one mass for all purposes. State lines would continue to configure the politico-legal map, and state governments would continue to wield important powers. In fact, states would form the basic building blocks of the new government. State borders and state-law electoral qualifications would shape the House of Representatives; state legislatures would elect a Senate in which each state would have equal weight; state-chosen electors would ballot for president; a Senate sensitive to states' rights would confirm federal judges; each state's borders and republican form of government would be guaranteed; and states could help propose and ratify federal constitutional amendments. Thus the new Constitution was not wholly national but partly federal, argued the Constitution's supporters, who cleverly called themselves "Federalists" rather that "Nationalists."

But on the fateful question of whether states would continue to be truly sovereign, with rights of unilateral exit, the Federalists agreed that the Anti-Federalists had not exaggerated. The difference of opinion on this question was not over what the document meant, but over whether the impermissibility of future secession was reason to commend or condemn the proposed "more perfect Union." Madison at Philadelphia stressed that one of the essential differences between a "league" and a "Constitution" was that the latter would prevent subunits from unilaterally bolting whenever they became dissatisfied."

More to follow....

Unionblue

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by trice

What I really do not understand is why anyone could possibly think such a "right" existed under the Constitution.

It's really quite simple. The tenth amendment says it all.

Originally Posted by trice

Please note that the Union never got to even seriously consider the question before they were attacked by the secessionists. No such unilateral right to do violence against your fellow citizens can be allowed.

Southerners were not violent people. They wanted a peaceful withdrawal from the Union. Lincoln would not allow peace. He was fully aware that the attempt to resupply Ft. Sumter would be seen as a hostile act, but he was resolved to keep the Southern states in the Union at all costs.

Originally Posted by trice

Secession is not independence.

I suppose that would depend on which side you viewed it from.

Originally Posted by trice

Again, independence does not imply a right to break your word whenever you feel like it, grabbing all the property you can lay hands on as you go. That is all that the "right of secession" as practiced in 1860-61 comes down to.

Breaking what word? Please, show me a source where any of the seceding states ever claimed they would never leave the Union no matter what.

As for "grabbing property" you can hardly expect the seceding states to dig up the Federal forts and the soil they were built on and deliver it to Washington. They offered compensation. I don't see what else they could have done.

Originally Posted by trice

Thomas Ritche, editor of the Richmond Enquirer: “The same formality which forged the links of the Union is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficacy of its constitutional laws, is Treason—Treason to all intents and purposes.”

Mr. Ritche was entitled to his personal opinion as editor of the Richmond Enquirer, just as everyone else was. But, I hardly think his opinion was law and the vast majority had little to say about the threat of secession of the New England states.

Originally Posted by trice

Even well before that and speaking of the much weaker "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union", Thomas Jefferson said: “When any one State in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compel them to obedience. Congress would probably exercise long patience before they would recur to force; but if the case ultimately required it, they would use that recurrence.”

In a letter to Joseph Priestly, Jefferson also said:

"Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the Western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the Eastern."

He went on to say that if those of the Mississippi valley should "see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in Union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

Originally Posted by trice

James Madison, letter to Edward Everett: the Consttitution is formed "by the people in each of the States, acting in their highest sovereign capacity.... Being thus derived from the same source as the Constitutions of the States, it...is as much a Constitution, in the strict sense of the term, within its prescribed sphere, as the Constitutions of the States are within their respective spheres; but with this obvious & essential difference, that being a compact among the States in their highest sovereign capacity, and constituting the people thereof one people for certain purposes, it cannot be altered or annulled at the will of the States individually, as the Constitution of a State may be at its individual will."

Madison was, also, one of the Committee of Five that wrote Virginia's ratification document which stated:

"...in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will...

While Madison may seem to be contradicting himself, he actually isn't. By claiming that the Constitution may not be altered or changed by individual states he is not referring to secession since secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

Madison also said: The more he reflected on the use of force the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and efficacy of it when applied the people collectively and not individually. -- "A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." "Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention."

Regards,
Rose

[unionblue]

From the book, America's Constitution, by Akhil Reed Amar:

PART II

"Madison here appeared to build on Blackstone's account of the indisoluble union of England and Scotland in 1707, a union that furnished a high-profile paradigm for what the Philadelphia framers were proposing in 1787. Draftsman Gouverneur Morris, who put the finishing stylistic touches on the Preamble, used language strongly resembling, and perhaps consciously borrowed from, the British union. The phrase "a more perfect Union," blended language from the official 1707 enactment, which spoke of "rendring the union of the two kingdoms more intire and compleat," with language from Queen Anne's July 1, 1706, letter to the Scotch Parliament, which spoke of "an entire and perfect union." This language from Queen Anne appeared verbatim in The Federalist No. 5, as Publius (here, John Jay--later America's first chief justice) explained exactly what kind of new, more perfect union was now being proposed to Americans. A few essays later, Hamilton/Publius in The Federalist No. 11 spoke of the need for a "strict and indissoluble" union. More generally, the entire opening section of The Federalist urged Americans to emulate the British by permanently unifying their landmass for military and geostrategic reasons.

Federalists from north to south sang from the same hymnal. Pennslvania's Wilson contrasted traditional "confederacies" that historically "have all fallen to pieces" with the proposed Constitution, in which "the bonds of our union" would be "indissolubly strong." North Carolina's Governor Samuel Johnston declared that "the Constitution must be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, it would be in the power of any one state to counteract the other states, and withdraw itself from the Union." Both Wilson and Johnston had emigrated from Scotland, and their visions of the proposed American union doubtless drew upon their intimate understanding of the British union that England and Scotland had achieved some four score years earlier. In Virginia, the distinguished legal scholar George Wythe forcefully explained what was at stake, blending language from the Declaration (which he had signed in 1776) and the Preamble. "To perpetuate the blessings of freedom, happiness, and independence," Americans must form "a firm, indissoluble union of the states" and thereby avoid "the extreme danger of dissolving the Union."

Even more striking than what the Constitution's friends said is what they did not say. No leading Federalist ever pubicly sought to win over states' rightists by conceding that a state could unilaterally nullify or secede in the event it later became dissatisfied. The Federalists' silence here was deafening, given how reassuring to states' rightists such a response would have been in all the places where the Philadelphia proposal hung precariously in the balance. Responding to the fears voiced by Anti-Federalist "men of little faith," Federalists stressed many specific protections, including bicameralism, separation of powers, enumerated powers, refinements in representation, the amendment process, and the states' status as building blocks in the national government. But never did Federalists float the right of an individual state to secede or nullify. Never did they say, "Give the new plan a try, and if you don't like it, your state may always leave."

Alongside what various people said and did not say in constitutional debates, we must attend to what the American people themselves did and did not do in the act of constitution itself. No state conventions, in its ratification insturment, purported to reserve the right of its state populace to unilateral secession. Notably, Virginia's convention spoke of the right of the people of the United States, not the people of VIrginia, to reassume power through future acts of popular sovereignty. Nor did any state convention impose any condition on its act of ratification.

The secession question arose most dramatically in the New York ratification convention, where Anti-Federalists held a strong majority when discussion began. At one point, Federalist Alexander Hamilton despairingly described "our chance of success here" as "infinitely slender." After extensive debate, and upon receiving word that New Hampshire and Virginia had recently ratified the Constitution as the decisive ninth and tenth states--thus ensuring that the Constitution would go into effect in these ten states--Anti-Federalist leaders proposed a compromise under which the convention would ratify the Constitution "upon condition" that the new Congress make way for certain constitutional amendments. With the ultimate prospects for New York ratification still in grave doubt, the offer tantalized Hamilton and his allies, but in the end they refused to take the bait. Instead, the Federalists insisted on replacing the words "upon condition" with language expressing the convention's "full confidence" that Congress would take up the suggested amendments--a factual expectation rather than a binding legal condition. The convention then beat back a proposal from the Anti-Federalist John Lansing that "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the Union after a certain number of years, unless the amendments proposed" were taken up. In this sharply focused debate, no one supposed that the Constitution already contained a general right of secession. Had such a right been thought to exist, Lansing's proposal would have limited it (to "a certain number of years" and a small set of triggers) and thus states rightists should have opposed Lansing, while continentalists should have favored him.

In actual fact, the exact opposite occurred. At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, New York's Federalists rose up to oppose the Lansing compromise. In doing so, they made clear to all observers--both in New York itself and in the many other places across the continent where men were following the New York contest with interest--that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession. In a letter to Hamilton, Madison had emphasized that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States" (including Madison's own Virginia). Hamilton read the letter aloud to the Convention and then added his own words. The "terms of the constitution import a perpetual compact between the different states...The [Article VI] oath to be taken stands in the way" of any subsequent right of unilateral secession. According to the contemporaneous account published in New York's Daily Advertiser, both Hamilton and his fellow delegate John Jay insisted that "a reservation of a right to withdraw...was inconsistent with the Consitution, and was no ratification."

Thus, in the great debate of the 1860s, both Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln got some things right and some things wrong, but Lincoln was right when it counted. Contrary to what Lincoln said, it is doubtful that a new, indivisible nation--as opposed to 13 nation-states in a classic confederacy--sprang into existence in July 1776, four score and seven years before the battle of Gettysburg. In fairness to Lincol, perhaps we should say that vis-a-vis the rest of the world, an new (confederate) nation was born in 1776. But the United States did not become an indivisible nation prohibiting unilateral state secession--the crux of the Gettysburg contest--until 1788. Lincoln also stumbled in claiming that none of the 13 original states had ever been truly sovereign. If the issue were somehow unclear from 1776 to 1788, surely "sovreign" is the right word to describe North Carolina and Rhode Island in April 1789. The burning question in the 1860s, however, was not whether states had ever been sovereign in a strong sense, but whether they still were. Texas had undeniably been a sovereign Lone Star republic in the years before statehood, but did she retain that status after joining the union? On that question, Lincoln properly insisted that the Constitution's more perfect union did not permit unilateral secession. Even though Jefferson Davis rightly read his namesake's Declaration, he wrongly read his country's Constitution. The fact that a new union was lawfully formed in the 1780s by secession from the old confederacy did not mean that a new confederacy could be lawfully formed in the 1860s by secession from the old union.

Chief Justice John Marshall had lived through the Revolution and the Founding, and thus was less likely that later interpreters to conflate the two events, either by arguing, as would Lincoln, that the Revolution had already made America one indivisible nation or by claiming, as would Davis, that the Founding had carried forward the confederate essence of the failed Articles. Writing in 1824, exactly midway between the fall of the Confederacy, Marshall summarized the issue nicely. "Reference has been made to the political situation of [the] States, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said, that they were soverign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their Congress of Ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a Legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the States appear, underwent a change."

Now with this source, and others, is with I get the undeniable truth that every state knew that once it joined the Union, it could not get out on it's own or by the use of unilateral secession, no matter how loudly they proclaimed such later before the Civil War. It is obvious by the quotes and state debates that this issue was debated long, loud, and often before the Constitution was ratified by conventions. So none can claim ignorance or even surprise when Andrew Jackson, Zacory Taylor, Buchcanan and Lincoln said there was no such thing as secession permitted under the Constitution. The right of rebellion, yes, peaceable secession, NO.

To imply anything else is to imply that our Revolutionary forefathers were great idiots and had not seen the weakness of the Articles of Confederation. Here is ample proof this was not so and that many raised the alarm that the status of the states would change and become subordinate to the Constitution and the people of the United States.

Sincerely,
Unionblue.

[unionblue]

Wild Rose,

Are you aware of Madison's opinions on the idea of secession? You do him a disservice when you imply that he is in any way supportive of that idea.

Unionblue

[trice]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

It's really quite simple. The tenth amendment says it all.

I agree fully with the Tenth Amendment. I simply do not believe that "secession" as practiced by the seceding states in 1860-61 is a power of the states. I do not believe it existed at any time, and so was not delegated by them nor prohibited to them.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Southerners were not violent people. They wanted a peaceful withdrawal from the Union. Lincoln would not allow peace. He was fully aware that the attempt to resupply Ft. Sumter would be seen as a hostile act, but he was resolved to keep the Southern states in the Union at all costs.

This is simply wrong. There is a long history, fully documentable, of violent and abusive acts by the seceding states from December of 1860 to April of 1861. Jefferson Davis had traveled through the South in January and February of 1861 preaching war. In all cases, it is the seceding states and their citizens who initiate the illegal seizures, the threats and use of force and finally the assualt upon Federal forces with intent to kill.

I am constantly amazed by the ability of those who wish to argue for secession to act as if none of what the South DID should be considered a cause of anything, while at the same time claiming that what Lincoln did, months later in reaction, justifies their prior aggressive acts.

Take this "the attempt to resupply Ft. Sumter would be seen as a hostile act" stuff. Might we not be much more accurate in saying that the Confederacy and South Carolina must have known that the several-month-long siege of Ft. Sumter, with demands that it be surrendered and clear preparations for an attack upon it, "would be seen as a hostile act". Why is it that everything involving secession must be seen as a one-way street, where nothing the secessionists do can be criticized?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

I suppose that would depend on which side you viewed it from.

No. Great Britain I would regard as sovereign and independent; I don't think she has a "right of secession" in any agreement she signs unless it is clearly spelled out in the agreement she signs -- and I believe the same holds true of whoever she signs the agreement with.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Breaking what word? Please, show me a source where any of the seceding states ever claimed they would never leave the Union no matter what.

Your question is phrased to get the answer you want. I haven't made this claim. You have set it up as a straw man to attack.

As to wording, the declarations themselves answer you. The seceding states do not simply say that they are leaving. They specifically announce that their original agreement is cancelled, the act rolled back and abrogated. Essentially, they say: "Remember when we promised to join in Union with you? We take it back."

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

As for "grabbing property" you can hardly expect the seceding states to dig up the Federal forts and the soil they were built on and deliver it to Washington. They offered compensation. I don't see what else they could have done.

In what way do you think a difficulty in moving property entitles the seceding states and take property without due process of law? Isn't this just illegal seizure even under the individual state constitutions and laws?

How about the $600,000 in specie Louisiana seized from the vaults of the New Orleans Custom House? The funds in the Federal paymaster's office they seized? The revenue cutters? The arms from the arsenals? All of that could have simply been packed up and shipped to Washington -- yet the thieves in Louisiana took it and used it for their own purposes. Similar acts occurred in other seceding states.

As to compensation -- please be more serious. Only crooks seize the property first and then offer to negotiate a price -- while also threatening other violent and aggressive acts, the disruption of your economy, and assualt upon your people.

Secessionists like to act as if their own acts are above reproach. They never want to acknowledge just how badly they themselves acted, how aggressive and illegal their course was, how they sought to create a financial crisis in the North to further their goals. They were a people who believed in using pressure to get what they wanted -- and they seem stunned and outraged that the people they were pressuring resented their acts.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Mr. Ritche was entitled to his personal opinion as editor of the Richmond Enquirer, just as everyone else was. But, I hardly think his opinion was law and the vast majority had little to say about the threat of secession of the New England states.

No, that is not so. Many people felt much the same. The careers of the 26 men who attended the Hartford Convention were essentially ruined by their association with it because the public saw their actions as disreputable and bordering on treason. It was essentiially the death-blow of the Federalist Party.

But while we are at this topic, note the major difference between the course MA would pursue, and what the Confederate states attempted. MA, having initiated a discussion with other states not too different than the wild talk of the Southern Commercial Conventions in the 1850s (probably much calmer) but more official, then sent representatives to the government to discuss terms. They did not initiate a program of seizures and threats of force; they did not use armed force against Federal troops. If the seceding states in 1860-61 had tried the same approach, they might have had some success -- but the violent, aggressive, abusive route they took was virtually guaranteed to bring war, and it did.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

In a letter to Joseph Priestly, Jefferson also said:
"Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the Western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the Eastern."
He went on to say that if those of the Mississippi valley should "see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in Union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

I see no conflict. But can you show me any quote, anywhere, that has one of those Founding Fathers saying that the proper course of action would be for the state to seize property, sequester funds, use armed troops to get what they want? To attack representatives of the Federal government? To besiege Federal posts, trying to starve them out, and eventually to assault them with intent to kill? This is what the secessionists of 1860-61 DID, and I find no reason to believe that any Founding Father visualized such violent behavior as proper.

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Madison was, also, one of the Committee of Five that wrote Virginia's ratification document which stated:

"...in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will...

While Madison may seem to be contradicting himself, he actually isn't. By claiming that the Constitution may not be altered or changed by individual states he is not referring to secession since secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

Again, why would somnething that did not exist be mentioned?

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

Madison also said: The more he reflected on the use of force the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and efficacy of it when applied the people collectively and not individually. -- "A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." "Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention."

So? Would not the the use of force by a state against the Federal government look like a war of revolution? Isn't that exactly what we see from the secessionists of 1860-61?

Regards,
Tim

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Wild Rose,

Are you aware of Madison's opinions on the idea of secession? You do him a disservice when you imply that he is in any way supportive of that idea.

Unionblue

Yes, I'm aware that he was dead set against secession, but from his own words, I think he realized that it couldn't be prevented (legally).

Rose

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by trice

I agree fully with the Tenth Amendment. I simply do not believe that "secession" as practiced by the seceding states in 1860-61 is a power of the states. I do not believe it existed at any time, and so was not delegated by them nor prohibited to them.

That's an interesting point of view. However, it seems to me that secession, as a concept, did exist and was discussed in the ratification docs, therefore it was either within the power of the states or they gave it up. The idea being, anything not delegated to the Union, nor prohibited by it, belonged to the states. I believe that literal translation was the spirit in which the founders wrote the tenth amendment.

Originally Posted by trice

Jefferson Davis had traveled through the South in January and February of 1861 preaching war. In all cases, it is the seceding states and their citizens who initiate the illegal seizures, the threats and use of force and finally the assualt upon Federal forces with intent to kill.

You do Mr. Davis an injustice. He was a peaceful man who was devastated over the split of the Union. When the majority of Mississippians elected to secede, only Davis and one other man voted against it. Davis did declare that he would stand behind what ever action his state took claiming she had justifiable cause. Mr. Clay, of Alabama, said, "Mr. Davis did not take an active part in planning or hastening secession. I think he only regretfully consented to it as a political necessity for the preservation of popular and State rights which were seriously threatened by the triumph of a sectional party who were pledged to make war upon them. I know that some leading men and even Mississippians thought him too moderate and backward, and found fault with him for not taking a leading part in secession."

"I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the war, but I could not. The North was mad and blind, would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came."--Jefferson Davis

“[Our situation] illustrates the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established."--Jefferson Davis

Originally Posted by trice

Take this "the attempt to resupply Ft. Sumter would be seen as a hostile act" stuff. Might we not be much more accurate in saying that the Confederacy and South Carolina must have known that the several-month-long siege of Ft. Sumter, with demands that it be surrendered and clear preparations for an attack upon it, "would be seen as a hostile act". Why is it that everything involving secession must be seen as a one-way street, where nothing the secessionists do can be criticized?

You first have to understand that the South believed secession to be undeniably within her rights. From that point of view she was NOT the cause of anything. Over and over claiming that all she wanted was to be left alone.

Everything that followed secession was was defensive rather than aggressive on the South's part. I realize that is arguable regarding the firing on Ft. Sumter, however it could have been avoided if Lincoln had withdrawn his troops rather than trying to sneak more in and the Confederates felt they were defending South Carolina from invaders. The mere fact that the siege lasted for months shows patience and a reluctance in resorting to violence on the Southern end.

Originally Posted by trice

No. Great Britain I would regard as sovereign and independent; I don't think she has a "right of secession" in any agreement she signs unless it is clearly spelled out in the agreement she signs -- and I believe the same holds true of whoever she signs the agreement with.

And I would agree, except that the compact of the states with the Union was to set up a minimal government for the good and convenience of the collective states. It was never designed to use force against any state to remain against their wishes. That freedom was the essence of the Constitution.

Originally Posted by trice

Essentially, they say: "Remember when we promised to join in Union with you? We take it back."

A different point of view would be: "Remember when we agreed to join the Union with you and retained the right to revert to self government if it didn't work out for us? We feel that you have not lived up to your end of the compact and we now exercise that right to self-government."

Originally Posted by trice

In what way do you think a difficulty in moving property entitles the seceding states and take property without due process of law? Isn't this just illegal seizure even under the individual state constitutions and laws?.

Due to the geographical location of the forts there seemed to be no other way for the state to rid themselves of a foreign army. Compensation for the property was the only practical course to take.

Originally Posted by trice

How about the $600,000 in specie Louisiana seized from the vaults of the New Orleans Custom House? The funds in the Federal paymaster's office they seized? The revenue cutters? The arms from the arsenals? All of that could have simply been packed up and shipped to Washington -- yet the thieves in Louisiana took it and used it for their own purposes. Similar acts occurred in other seceding states.

Did those things happen before or after Lincoln ordered troops to invade the South?

Originally Posted by trice

As to compensation -- please be more serious. Only crooks seize the property first and then offer to negotiate a price -- while also threatening other violent and aggressive acts, the disruption of your economy, and assualt upon your people.

I'm sorry, but I was of the impression that crooks seized the property and never negotiated to pay for it. The Confederates, as far as I can tell, never threatened aggression except what they believed necessary to defense.

Originally Posted by trice

Secessionists like to act as if their own acts are above reproach. They never want to acknowledge just how badly they themselves acted, how aggressive and illegal their course was, how they sought to create a financial crisis in the North to further their goals. They were a people who believed in using pressure to get what they wanted -- and they seem stunned and outraged that the people they were pressuring resented their acts.

It doesn't seem as though we are talking about the same people. The South did not invade the North. As for attempting to create a Northern financial crisis are you referring to free trade and low tariffs? Please, when referring to antebellum North and South no one has the right to accuse the other of using pressure to gain what they wanted. That had been going on from both sides since the signing of the Constitution and even before.

Originally Posted by trice

No, that is not so. Many people felt much the same. The careers of the 26 men who attended the Hartford Convention were essentially ruined by their association with it because the public saw their actions as disreputable and bordering on treason. It was essentiially the death-blow of the Federalist Party.

Ok. You are right on that count. But, the New England states clearly believed they had a right to secede and not everyone disagreed.

Originally Posted by trice

But while we are at this topic, note the major difference between the course MA would pursue, and what the Confederate states attempted. MA, having initiated a discussion with other states not too different than the wild talk of the Southern Commercial Conventions in the 1850s (probably much calmer) but more official, then sent representatives to the government to discuss terms. They did not initiate a program of seizures and threats of force; they did not use armed force against Federal troops. If the seceding states in 1860-61 had tried the same approach, they might have had some success -- but the violent, aggressive, abusive route they took was virtually guaranteed to bring war, and it did.

They did not initiate a program of seizure nor used armed force because they never actually seceded nor were they threatened by U.S. troops. That is the huge difference.

You are wrong. The Southern states sent peace delegations to Washington. Lincoln refused to meet with themeither officially or informally. He refused to recognize secession or the Confederacy. He wanted the Southern states in the Union, with or without their consent, and nothing was going to change his mind. There is no approach the Confederate states could have taken to prevent what eventually happened, short of giving in to Lincoln's no-compromise demands.

The Confederacy publicly offered to pay the the Southern states’ share of the national debt, to pay compensation for all federal installations in the South, and to allow Northern ships free use of the Mississippi River. The Confederacy also hoped to establish good trade relations with the United States. Lincoln refused to even consider any of the peace proposals.

Originally Posted by trice

I see no conflict. But can you show me any quote, anywhere, that has one of those Founding Fathers saying that the proper course of action would be for the state to seize property, sequester funds, use armed troops to get what they want? To attack representatives of the Federal government? To besiege Federal posts, trying to starve them out, and eventually to assault them with intent to kill? This is what the secessionists of 1860-61 DID, and I find no reason to believe that any Founding Father visualized such violent behavior as proper.

I believe you are the one attempting to set up a straw man, not to mention you are being just a tad melodramatic. At Fort Sumter if there had been "intent to kill" there would have been deaths. If there was an attempt to "starve them out", the people of Charleston wouldn't have fed them for so long. Feeding federal troops only ceased because, like unwanted house guests, they refused to leave and Charlestonians didn't feel obligated to continue to make them comfortable.

Originally Posted by trice

Again, why would somnething that did not exist be mentioned?

Because the concept of secession did exist and was a real possibility. Did not the colonies secede from GB?

Regards,
Rose