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 - "Please note that the Union never got to even seriously consider the question before they were attacked by the secessionists."
The subject was the topic of serious debate long before secession occured. Several compromises were enacted - like the concommitant admission of 1 slave, 1 non-slave state - to avoid secession.
No, I think not. I am speaking here of the actual issue of secession votes by the states and their attempt to withdraw. No terms were discussed, no arrangements made, before the South began seizing property and using armed force.
[Wigfall-]
He had the opportunity to relieve himself of his oath of office. He could have resigned in February of 1861 when Texas was seceding just as Jefferson Davis did when Mississippi seceded. Wigfall chose not to do so. He remained on in Washington to use his office to gather information. He recruited men in Maryland and sent them off to Charleston. He, still bound by his personal oath, participated in the attack on Ft. Sumter. Dishonorable to say the least. If you consider him a Texas/Confederate citizen, he is being deceitful in continuing in his office in the US. His actions mark him as either a spy or a traitor, not his personal beliefs.
....
Wigfall, by his actions, is either a traitor or a spy; it merely depends upon whether he is considered a US citizen or not after Texas moves for secession and he refuses to resign.
None of them were ever tried for it, of course, since once the war was over the country did not find that a course of action it wanted to pursue.
Regards,
Tim
Wigfall wasn't charged with treason when the war was going on either.
He was expelled from the Senate in March 1861 for "supporting the rebellion."
Why didn't the US gov't charge him with treason then?
Neil, I can accept that Lincoln didn't believe war was inevitible at the time of his inauguration. And, I can believe that in 1862 he wished it had never started, but when he attempted the supply mission at Ft. Sumter he knew...he had to know, that it would provoke the first shots and the beginning of a war. He was advised that this was a strong possibility. Later he even as much as admitted that he provoked the Confederates deliberately.
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
No, Rose. The definition of Treason in the Constitution of the United States is probably the narrowest in the world, deliberately made so by the Founding Fathers, and difficult to prove. In the entire history of the country very, very few people have been convicted of it.
Pryor and Ruffin were textbook cases of Treason on the facts of their actions. Wigfall, by his actions, is either a traitor or a spy; it merely depends upon whether he is considered a US citizen or not after Texas moves for secession and he refuses to resign.
I believe that I have already admitted these three men would probably be considered traitors in the eyes of the Union. I don't know what more you want from me.
Respectfully,
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
Wigfall wasn't charged with treason when the war was going on either.
He was expelled from the Senate in March 1861 for "supporting the rebellion."
Why didn't the US gov't charge him with treason then?
Please note that Senator Wigfall was expelled from the Senate in July of 1861, not in March as you state.
In late March, Senator Wigfall was still casting votes in the Senate on behalf of Texas. In March, he was also raising volunteers in Maryland to fight for the Confederacy, running ads in the Baltimore papers for them in April, and assisting in sending them to Charleston. There was a time where he was officially in both the US and Confederate Congresses in 1861. At Ft. Sumter, he was serving as an aide to the commander of the force attacking the US.
As I said, the nation made a decision not to try all of these people (as well as a few hundred thousand or million others) for Treason. The motivations are varied and obvious and mainly come down to a) trying to move forward to reunite the nation and b) not wanting to open a can of worms in the form of endless trials.
That doesn't mean the men did not commit Treason. It means they were not charged with or tried for it.
I believe that I have already admitted these three men would probably be considered traitors in the eyes of the Union. I don't know what more you want from me.
Rose, as with most people arguing in favor of secession, you avoid making clear and definitive statements that admit Southerners acted badly. You are doing it again here.
The "eyes of the Union" has nothing to do with this. Neither does the belief of the men in a "right of secession" They either committed Treason by their acts or they did not.
Two of these men are clearly American citizens, one of them additionally bound by his oath of office. Despite this, they participated in an attack on US forces. This fits *exactly* the US Constitution definition of Treason.
One of them, Wigfall, clearly acted in an improper manner. It appears to me that the US Constitution requires anyone serving as a Senator to be a US citizen. If regarded still as a US citizen he is clearly guilty of Treason. Wigfall chose to remain in the Senate, thereby assuming all the responsibilites of a US citizen, no matter what his state had done.
Can you not, simply and without qualification, admit that these men acted as traitors to the country they served?
I am afraid that secessionists many times stated that freedom was dependent upon slavery.
John C. Calhoun, Senator from South Carolina: "The defense of human liberty against the aggressions of despotic power have been always the most efficient in States where domestic slavery was to prevail."
Henry Wise, Congressman and future governor from Virginia: "The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to equality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men."
Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia: "There is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery."
Thomas F. Dew, Professor at the College of William & Mary: "It has been contended that slavery is unfavorable to a republican spirit; but the whole history of the world proves that this is far from being the case. In the ancient republics of Greece and Rome, where the spirit of liberty glowed with the most intensity, the slaves were more numerous than the freemen. Aristotle and the great men of antiquity believed slavery necessary to keep alive the spirit of freedom. In Sparta the freemen were even forbidden to perform the offices of slaves, lest [they] might lose the spirit of independence. In modern times, too, liberty has always been more ardently desired by slaveholding communities.....Color alone here is the badge of distinction, the true mark of aristocracy, and all who are white are equal in spite of the variety of occupation....And it is this spirit of equality which is bothe the generator and preserver of the genuine spirit of liberty."
From the Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves...freedom is not possible without slavery."
There are more and I will attempt to find them for you.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Calhoun and Hunter's quotes are not necessarily saying slavery is essential to freedom. The the one by the Richmond Enquirer, "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves...freedom is not possible without slavery", makes no sense what-so-ever. Free states enjoyed the same freedoms in the Union as did free citizens of slave states. I have to think this is taken out of context somehow.
Dew's comments, after rambling about ancient Rome and Greece's beliefs, seem to be claiming freedom is more precious where slaves exist (by comparison) which, I might add, is silly.
Wise seems to be saying that we must have inferiors among us in order to be superior and that without slavery white men would necessarily have to fill the gap of the inferiors. Ridiculous. Poor Southerners did not enjoy the same social status as the rich, regardless of how many slaves the South had.
Do you really think this was a common belief in the South? I'm skeptical.
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
Rose, as with most people arguing in favor of secession, you avoid making clear and definitive statements that admit Southerners acted badly. You are doing it again here.
Tim, I admit that Southerners weren't always "good" and Northerners weren't always "bad". Nothing is ever all good nor all bad. I don't claim that Southerners always took the wisest course or that they never made mistakes. I do claim they were humans, just like Northerners and no better nor no worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
The "eyes of the Union" has nothing to do with this. Neither does the belief of the men in a "right of secession" They either committed Treason by their acts or they did not.
Can you not, simply and without qualification, admit that these men acted as traitors to the country they served?
Regards,
Tim
No, because there is no hard line. The issue isn't either black or white (no pun intended). Those three men in question may have been traitors to the U.S. to the same extent that the Americans were traitors to the crown. From a Southern point of view they were not traitors since the South believed the compact had already been broken and alliegence to the Union was no longer a matter of honor.
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
[quote=Wild_Rose]Tim, I admit that Southerners weren't always "good" and Northerners weren't always "bad". Nothing is ever all good nor all bad. I don't claim that Southerners always took the wisest course or that they never made mistakes. I do claim they were humans, just like Northerners and no better nor no worse.[/qoute]
Yet we see you always criticizing Northerners and never admitting any particular Southerner acted badly in this issue of secession. Seems odd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
No, because there is no hard line. The issue isn't either black or white (no pun intended). Those three men in question may have been traitors to the U.S. to the same extent that the Americans were traitors to the crown. From a Southern point of view they were not traitors since the South believed the compact had already been broken and alliegence to the Union was no longer a matter of honor.
You seem to think that the beliefs or feelings of people give them an immunity from the law. That is not so.
If you are an American citizen, Treason consists solely of the acts defined in the Constitution. Ruffin and Pryor both were US citizens when they participated in the attack on Ft. Sumter. This fits the definition of treason *exactly*.
Even following secessionist beliefs, this must be so. Virginia has not seceded. Virginia is still part of the United States. By participating in the assault upon Ft. Sumter, Pryor and Ruffin were participating in an attack on Virginia through the United States.
There really is a "hard line". You simply do not wish to acknowledge it.
Does he not spend several pages attempting to convince the reader that 'more perfect' means 'perpetual?" I've known what those words mean since grade school, and they've never meant the same thing.
As for the relevent pages, you can start with pp. 21-39.
It is a 'nice, acedemic exercise.' Nothing more. You can't write a serious book on the subject of state vs. federal rights and not even reference the 10th Amend.
I can honestly say that 'more perfect' and 'perpetual' do not mean the same thing. If you think otherwise, check your dictionary. Words have meanings. I respectfully submit that it is you who is in denial.
I don't deny any trail of court opinions. Show me 1, just 1, any 1, that addresses the question of secession before Tx. v. White. As I've explained before, the cases you like don't deal with secession, but deal with the necessary and proper clause (implied powers) or federal question jurisdiction. See, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 387(1819)("The judiciary may, indeed, and must, see that what has been done is not a mere evasive pretext, under which the national legislature travels out of the prescribed bounds of its authority, and encroaches upon state sovereignty, or the rights of the people."). The power to regulate secession is not enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, the subject "travels out of the prescribed bounds of its [the US's] authority," and therefore Lincoln's preservation of the Union "encroaches upon state sovereignty." Deny all you want, but please be honest and admit that even your cases demonstrate that secession is a question left for the states.
Did it ever occur to you that the necessary and proper clause has no application to secession because Congress has NEVER passed a law prohibiting state secession?
Deny the supremacy clause? How soon you forget. Allow me to cut and paste from one of my posts in our prior discussion on this topic:
"You say that the supremacy clause prohibits secession. But the supremacy clause doesn't apply to the powers reserved to the states by the Constitution. The supremacy clause provides, in relevant part, that "THIS Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made IN PURSUANCE THEREOF,... shall be the supreme law of the land;..." (emphasis added) The power of secession is not delegated to the United States in the Constitution, and the Constitution does not prohibit the power of secession to the states; therefore, the power of secession is not part of THIS Constitution. As the power of secession is not part of THIS Constitution, no fed law prohibiting secession could lawfully be enacted in pursuance of THIS Constitution. Thus, the scope of the supremacy clause, applying only to powers contained in THIS Constitution and fed laws in pursuance thereof, does not, by its own terms, apply to the reserved power of the states to secede."
Deny all you want, but please be honest and admit that the supremacy clause does not prohibit state secession.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
