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 -"I find the concept that any one party has full control of everything they can lay hands on to be legally unworkable and practically insane."
I see you as a strong adherent to democratic principles. But, you don't live in a democracy. You live in a constitutional republic.
It makes no difference on this issue. The states are still bound to agreement among themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
If the country were a pure democracy, there'd be no need for states or state boundaries.
Sure there would be. Administrative problems would bring it about, if nothing else. I live in little NJ, where there are hundreds of little towns administering the local affairs, and many counties. Most of the towns were formed in the 1890s and early 1900s. Probably far too many for efficiency in this day and age, but a massive bureaucracy out of Trenton running everything would also have greater problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Everything would be decided by majority vote of US citizens. But the Constitution retained the states as well as state sovereignty. You may not think that a good idea, but that's what happened.
I have no problem with the existence of the states. I do have a problem with the belief that the desires of a small portion of the states should over-ride the people as a whole.
One of the thing to note here is that the seceding states had a massive problem with abiding by the Constitution as it applied to elections for Congress and the President. If they claim -- as they did -- that the election of a Republican President was a cause for their secession, we already know they are not honoring their oaths to the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
I agree with Rose that you might not have ratification at all if prohibiting secession had been a condition.
Or maybe you would have. Maybe what would have happened if it was really a seriously important issue is that the method of "secession" would have been spelled out to guarantee it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
BTW, no one state has "full control of everything." For example, we here in Oh. might vote NJ out of the Union. Could Ohioans do that? Of course not, because Ohioans don't have "full control of everything." By the Constitution, each state does retain determination of itself; i.e., full control over itself, subject only to the powers the states specifically delegated to the US. The power of secession was not specifically delegated to the US in the Constitution.
Actually, I would disagree with what you say here because it is not consistent with the Constitution, nor with what I said.
IMHO, no individual state could vote itself or another state out of the Union. However, if a sufficient number of states wished to vote another state out, they could through simple processes outlined in the Constitution. For example, if the other states had decided to toss South Carolina out during the Nullification Crisis, I think the constitutional method for doing so already exists.
I also do not believe an independent state could vote itself into the Union once formed. The states could (and did) vote Texas into the Union over the objections of some states. They could (and did) vote US territories into existence as states. But this process required a majority in Congress and was also subject to Presidential approval/veto.
The main problem with "secession" is the idea that states are not bound by the agreements they sign, that they can, at their own whim and without regard to the other members of the agreement, cancel their participation and walk away. This is simply unworkable in any legal system short of anarchy.
Please forgive the fragmented replys. I can't get this site to keep a response from page to page, so sometimes I reply several times to different statements on different pages. Now back to our regularly scheduled debate.
"The states are still bound to agreement among themselves." Where does it say in the Constitution that the states have to agree to everything. They don't. That's why some sell fireworks and some don't.
"Sure there would be. Administrative problems would bring it about, if nothing else." No, states are different than political subdivisions. States retain all sovereignty not delegated to the fed. Political subdivisions, like counties, cities, townships, etc. derive their powers from the sovereign; they have no sovereignty of their own. We could just have all sorts of political subdivisions, which would be easier. You wouldn't need 50 different legislatures, or 50 different court systems, or 50 different Depts. of Transportation, or 50 different.....etc.
"I do have a problem with the belief that the desires of a small portion of the states should over-ride the people as a whole." But the states like it that way. NJ can have fireworks even if the other 49 states think its a bad idea. One state can experiment with laws no other state goes for. Maybe it works and the other states adopt them. Maybe they don't and no other state adopts them.
"If they claim -- as they did -- that the election of a Republican President was a cause for their secession...." Most ordinances of secession identify slavery as the reason for secession. I personally think slavery was the predominant cause. If slavery didn't exist, Lincoln's election would not have brought on secession.
Tim - I have repeatedly asked people through the years for examples of legal "secession" (as practiced by the seceding states in 1861) in history before that date. No one has ever come up with one. Perhaps you would like to be the first?"
First you must show another republic containing dual sovereignty.
No, not me. I do not believe any legal governmental system besides anarchy can continue to exist with a "right of secession" as the Confederates attempted it. It doesn't matter to me if it is an Empire, a monarchy, a republic, a democracy, a communist state, etc. It simply makes the system too prone to failure to survive long.
But understand also that the logic given above works both ways. If you will only accept examples against a "right of secession" from a "republic containing dual sovereignty", you can only accept examples for a "right of secession" from a "republic containing dual sovereignty". Either way, you have none before the Civil War.
This makes the existence of such a "right of secession" very debatable. It was very debatable before the Civil War, and at various times opinion about it wavered back and forth: Southerners often being against it when Northerners discussed it, and Northerners often being against it when Southerners discussed it. The "right of secession" tends to be a favorite of the "outs" of the moment.
In the midst of all this uncertainty, the South decided to insist they had it, and to act very aggressively and abusively in reaching for it as well. It was the aggression and abuse that brought the war on at that moment in time. If they had acted differently, the war might have been avoided or delayed. If they had tried another approach, the rest of the country might have let them go after some negotiations: but the South chose not to try something that simple, and so we had a war. The war in turn decided the issue of the moment de facto, and the aftermath led to de jure decisions that seem to settle the issue somewhat more. Nowadays, the presumption has to be that no such "right of secession" exists in the United States.
My point is that you must have some form of gov't containing two sovereigns before one can secede from the other.
The power to secede existed when the ordinance to secede passed. You're missing the point with this 'existence' thing, still.
"It simply makes the system too prone to failure to survive long." I'd say the US did well during the time of the Confederacy. It maintained all its institutions and won a major war. With or without the seceeded states, the US was quite healthy.
Tim -Please forgive the fragmented replys. I can't get this site to keep a response from page to page, so sometimes I reply several times to different statements on different pages. Now back to our regularly scheduled debate.
No problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"The states are still bound to agreement among themselves."
Where does it say in the Constitution that the states have to agree to everything. They don't. That's why some sell fireworks and some don't.
Actually, I would say that virtually any action of the US is done by agreement among the states, exercised through their elected or appointed representatives. This would apply to any law passed by Congress, to the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, the actions of Presidents, etc.
I just see no reason that agreement has to be unanimous, and the Constitution clearly agrees. In the end, the government is completely responsible to the People through the mechanisms of the states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Tim -"Sure there would be. Administrative problems would bring it about, if nothing else."
No, states are different than political subdivisions. States retain all sovereignty not delegated to the fed. Political subdivisions, like counties, cities, townships, etc. derive their powers from the sovereign; they have no sovereignty of their own. We could just have all sorts of political subdivisions, which would be easier. You wouldn't need 50 different legislatures, or 50 different court systems, or 50 different Depts. of Transportation, or 50 different.....etc.
You might have one massive one, with more than 50 subdivisions.
But, for example, we have 35 or 36 of the 50 states who derive their sovereignity from the sovereignity of the United States. Only the original 13 and Texas can claim to have had a sovereign and independent existence apart from the United States; possibly Hawaii if you wish to twist legality into a pretzel.
All were territories acquired through the blood and treasure of the United States of America, or territory ceded to those United States by some of the states (such as Kentucky by Virginia, or Tennessee by North Carolina). Kentucky is the only one of those 36 that, IIRR, was never a territory of the US, becoming a state as Virginia and the US allowed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"I do have a problem with the belief that the desires of a small portion of the states should over-ride the people as a whole."
But the states like it that way.
No, they don't. That is why they established the Constitution in the first place: they thought the central government had too little power and control, and no mechanisms for ensuring all the states obeyed the decisions of the majority and fullfilled their obligations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
NJ can have fireworks even if the other 49 states think its a bad idea. One state can experiment with laws no other state goes for. Maybe it works and the other states adopt them. Maybe they don't and no other state adopts them.
I think this example is not relevant to the issue. You are talking about an individual case that does not apply. NJ can do what it likes about fireworks within their borders (Federal law not conflicting). However if PA bans fireworks and NJ decides to stage a display over PA territory, causing a massive forest fire, NJ will be at fault and subject to penalty and discipline by the Federal system.
More relevant would be the litigation about water rights along the Colorado River (IIRR, involving states from the Dakotas to California, in addition to Mexico, and ongoing for something like 100+ years last I knew).
What secessionists try to avoid like crazy is any admission that the interdependence of rights and obligations can limit any individual members' rights. It remains true, and the denial of it is one of the biggest holes in the secession argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"If they claim -- as they did -- that the election of a Republican President was a cause for their secession...."
Most ordinances of secession identify slavery as the reason for secession. I personally think slavery was the predominant cause. If slavery didn't exist, Lincoln's election would not have brought on secession.
Yes, it is true that they do, and I also believe slavery was overwhelmingly the reason we had secession and a Civil War. However, it is established facts that many secessionists felt that the election of a Republican President was a proximate reason/cause for secession in 1860 because it indicated to them that slavery was in danger.
It did not matter to them that Lincoln said he would not limit slavery where it already existed, nor that this was the platform the Republicans ran on in 1860. There is a famous debate in 1858 between Yancy and Pryor at the Southern Commercial Convention on the issue of secession. Yancy said that secession was already justified; Pryor denied it. Asked what would make it justified for the Upper South, Pryor replied the election of a Republican President.
It did not matter to them who that Republican was, and Lincoln was a very forgettable politician at that time. It also appears that Pollard of Richmond and Rhett of Charleston felt the same. Rhett and Yancy then seem to have deliberately led the split in the Democratic party in order to get that Republican elected, thereby increasing the chances of getting their desire of secession.
Tim - My point is that you must have some form of gov't containing two sovereigns before one can secede from the other.
I doubt it. Lords and barons sometimes combined, established kingdoms and elected one of their number to rule them. They were sovereign before, but any attempt at "secession" would be regarded as rebellion.
But even if you are right, you still have no point at which the "right of secession" is established, pro or con. It is and was a very debatable point in those days, but the South chose not to pursue it by legal and peacefull methods. That, IMHO, is where they blew it, and their action is what caused the changes in the debatable nature of the existence of the "right of secession".
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
The power to secede existed when the ordinance to secede passed. You're missing the point with this 'existence' thing, still.
Nope. The existence of the "right of secession" is only meaningful under the Constitution because it must exist there or it can have no legal effect. No individual state has the right to alter that agreement, or to interpret it. By agreement, the Supreme Court was given jurisdiction on all controversies between states, and the amendment process was established to deal with any need to alter the Constitution
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"It simply makes the system too prone to failure to survive long."
I'd say the US did well during the time of the Confederacy. It maintained all its institutions and won a major war. With or without the seceeded states, the US was quite healthy.
Please note that the whole point of the Civil War was that states had no right to secede in this fashion. The confederacy's attempt is merely revolution, and failed revolution at that.
"I would say that virtually any action of the US is done by agreement among the states...." But we're not talking about an "action of the US," we're talking about an action of a state - whether it be the subject of secession or fireworks. State powers are NOT exercised by agreement among the states. They'd not be 'state' powers if the right to exercise them depended on consent from other states or the fed. They are 'state' powers precisely because they belong to the states, to exercise or not as they see fit and without the consent of anyone.
I would say that "In the end, the government is completely responsible to the People through the mechanisms of the states" AND the fed. The People have delegated some of their powers to the states and some to the fed, each to act within their own respective spheres.
"But, for example, we have 35 or 36 of the 50 states who derive their sovereignity from the sovereignity of the United States." I understand your point, but the Constitution does not. The Constitution does not recognize two separate classes of states, original and admitted. It only says 'states,' and that means they all must be treated the same under the Constitution. I agree that these other 36 states were granted sovereignty by admission to the US. But there's nothing in the Constitution that says that once sovereignty is thus granted, the US can take it back. If you didn't want to grant sovereignty to those other 36, they should have never been admitted in the first place.
"No, they don't. That is why they established the Constitution in the first place...." The states do like to override the majority, and they do it all the time. In fact, states don't even have to consult with other states before they pass laws; they just pass them even if the other 49 don't. The purpose of creating the Constitution was to delegate to a central gov't the authority to act on behalf of the whole in those 'enumerated' circumstances - like war - when acting as a whole is deemed beneficial. Think of it as the gov'ts attempt to employ the economies of scale. In all other - non-enumerated - circumstances, the states may act for themselves.
"However if PA bans fireworks and NJ decides to stage a display over PA territory, causing a massive forest fire, NJ will be at fault and subject to penalty and discipline by the Federal system." I think fireworks as relevent an example as secession or traffic laws or states regulating mad cow disease or water rights. They are all examples of states exercising their own sovereign powers. That some subjects may be more controversial than others is immaterial. When SC seceeded, it didn't take Va. or Ga. territory with it; it spoke only for SC. If NJ allows fireworks, it does so only for NJ, not Pa.
"What secessionists try to avoid like crazy is any admission that the interdependence of rights and obligations can limit any individual members' rights." Such interdependence can limit the rights of individual members only if the 'right' at issue was delegated to the fed and enumerated in the Constitution. Otherwise, such interdependence may not limit the rights of individual members.
"Lords and barons sometimes combined, established kingdoms and elected one of their number to rule them. They were sovereign before, but any attempt at "secession" would be regarded as rebellion." Examples please. Or, you really needn't bother because the gov't must be republican in form as well. Lords and barons didn't run gov'ts of the People, they ran gov'ts of lords and barons. But I suspect that one lord might 'secede' his territory from that of another lord. Why couldn't he? If it was his territory to begin with, and he joined with another and the partnership didn't work, why couldn't he secede his territory from the other?
"The existence of the 'right of secession' is only meaningful under the Constitution because it must exist there or it can have no legal effect." With all due respect, you must educate yourself on the concept of enumerated powers before we can discuss this fruitfully. Or you try to find an authoritative basis arguing that the existence of a topic must be recognized before legislation on it may be passed. You won't find any such authority.
"Please note that the whole point of the Civil War was that states had no right to secede in this fashion." Might does not make right. The issue isn't whether secession is good or bad or stronger or weaker, but whether its constitutional. If it is, and you think it bad, then you can amend. BTW, the whole point of the CW was, for the southern states, to achieve their independence and thereby keep their slaves.
I know a man who was sentenced to 10 years in Federal prison for his actions. He was clearly guilty, and tried to flee ahead of his sentencing, but was captured after about 6 weeks. If you listened to him, he was completely innocent and everything was someone else's fault.
Secessionists remind me very much of him. Whatever they believed, they were in the wrong on their actions.
What the secessionists believed was wrong and what you believe is right? The secessionists clearly viewed the role of government to be minimal and with only as much power as was delegated to it by the states. They believed this because the Constitution said so. If they were wrong then every principal of the Union was a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Just like secessionists told people that freedom was dependent upon slavery. Double-speak is a familiar technique used by propagandists of all times and stripes, but it does not change the facts.
What is your source for this? I've never heard of secessionists claiming that freedom was dependent on slavery. You are saying the South believed they couldn't be free men unless they had slaves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Arguable? Really? How kind of you to realize that the Confederate assault might be at least a little questionable.
Arguable only because the Confederates fired the first shot. But, IMO, that argument is negated because Lincoln manipulated the situation and provoked the Confederates. He was ready to commence his war, but he didn't want to be accused of having started the war. He needed the Confederates to fire first and they obliged him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Please note that accusing Lincoln of "sneaking" when he had notified the Governor of SC that a re-supply expedition would be coming is not at all sustainable, and that Lincoln had said the fort would not be reinforced unless resistance to the re-supply effort was made.
It was agreed on between Washington and the South Carolina Congress that nothing would be done regarding Ft. Sumter until it could be negotiated and decided on. Major Anderson chose to leave Ft. Moultrie in the middle of the night and sneak into Ft. Sumter which he felt he could better defend than Moultrie. Of course, SC saw this as a hostile action considering the agreement they had.
Lincoln decided to send war ships and troops along with supplies in spite of having told the Confederacy he would send supplies only. When the Confederates learned of his plan they stepped up their demand to Maj. Anderson to abandon the fort. Lincoln later, after the failed mission, congratulated his co-conspirator, Gustavus Fox, for a job well done. Lincoln wrote, ..." You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." He had achieved his goal to get the Confederates to fire the first shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
I also see here again the "it was Lincoln's fault for not giving in" argument. The answer that is in Lincoln's Cooper Union speech: "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!'"
Lincoln was being a tyrant. After the proverbial "pistol was held to his ear, he was still a tyrant."
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
More likely, it merely indicates that it took the new Confederacy time to build up the forces necessary, since Beauregard did not report his preparations complete until a few days before the attack began.
The Confederates were being told that the fort was going to be evacuated. That is why they didn't use force earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Also, please note that Davis and his Secretary of War also entertained the idea of attacking Ft. Pickens instead. They began talking to Braxton Bragg, commander at Pensacola, about taking Ft. Pickens in the first half of March. At one point, there was a mad rush of thrill-seekers out of Montgomery towards Pensacola in the belief that the war was about to start there. Bragg thought he might be able to take the place, but it would have been a bloodbath. Davis eventually decided the attempt there was too risky, and chose to start the war at Ft. Sumter instead.
A mad rush of thrill seekers? Would that be akin to First Bull Run where Northern ladies donned their finest and prepared picnic baskets to enjoy while they watched their men "whip" the Rebels?
You may attempt to portray Mr. Davis as a warmonger, walking in circles, scratching his head while trying to decide how and where to start a war, but it simply isn't the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
At the same time, President Davis ordered the internment of the US forces in Texas. There were about 1100 of these, peacefully withdrawing in accord with the agreement forced upon them in February by Texas, about another 1100 having already evacuated. He appointed the newly-resigned Federal officer Earl Van Dorn to do this and sent him back to Texas as a Confederate general. The last of the 1100 interned in violation of the agreement was exchanged in late 1863 at New Orleans.
I'm not familiar with the particulars of this incident. I ran a google and didn't turn up anything. Do you have a source?
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
Concerning Trice's reference's about what happened in Texas to US Regular Army forces there, Shane had once pointed this incident out in another thread. I too, had never heard of it, so I went and bought the book he told me about that told this story. In that book, That Body Of Brave Men, The U.S. Regular Infantry And The Civil War In The West, by Mark W. Johnson, you will find what you searched for.
In the section entitled, PROLOGUE, TEXAS, 1861, you will find the incident mentioned by Trice and confirmed by Shane and the book. In part in states:
"As states seceded from the Union in 1860 and 1861, troops manning Federal installations in those states suddenly found themselves deep in hostile territory. While no shots had yet been fired, the Texas regulars were cut off from reinforcements, provisions, and transportation. Paralyzed by indecision and not wanting to make a bad situation worse by provoking hostilities, the lame-duck Buchanan Administration issued no guidance to commanders in the field beyond vague instructions to keep garrisons in place and avoid clashes with state authorities. Nothing more would be done until the Lincoln Administration took over on March 4 and determined America's policy toward the seceded states....
The Commander of the Department of Texas, Brevet Major General David E. Twiggs, complicated this difficult situation. He had no intention of defending anything. A Georgian by birth, Twiggs did not hide his secessionist sympathies and realized the secession of Texas was just a matter of time. "If an old woman with a broomstick in hand came to me, and having authority from the State of Texas demanded my surrender," Twiggs stated in February of 1861, "I would yield without a word of protest." Apparently the old woman arrived on the 18th of that month. Although the ordinance of succession passed by the Texas legislature on February 1 had not yet been ratified by the state's citizens, Gen. Twiggs surrendered his command to the State of Texas. He authorized the Texas government to take control of all posts, stores, and equipment, and ordered the regulars to march to the coast for evacuation by sea. Presented with a fait accompli, the War Department chartered a small flotilla of steamships to bring the troops out. The soldiers in Twigg's department immediately branded him a traitor but there was not much more they could do. Scattered about in remote locations, resistance would have been futile. Representatives of the Texas government arrived at each of the garrisons during February and March. Large numbers of state militia troops backed them up as the officials negotiated surrender and evacuation....
The Federal regulars who were not able to make it out, about 1,300 in number, were taken prisoner in Texas and New Mexico during April and May. Most of the officers were paroled, but the soldiers were forced to work as laborers at some of their former posts. Almost two years would pass before the last of the Texas regulars were exchanged and set free. It was but small consolation for them that President James Buchanan dismissed Gen. Twiggs from the army on March 1, 1861, for "treachery to the flag of his country." Twiggs fled to New Orleans, where he received a hero's welcome and a major general's commission in the Confederate army. He died in July 1862, playing no further significant role in the war."
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
