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.
"The power of one state to take actions that affect other states is limited by the obligations to and rights of the affected states." Where in the Constitution does it say that?
I am no expert on water rights. However, see, http://www.law.pace.edu/landuse/wate.html
where I found that "In 1962, President John F. Kennedy instituted major changes in federal water policy emphasizing river basin planning[29] and setting as a goal the development of comprehensive plans for all major river basins by 1970.[30] In 1965, Congress enacted the Water Resources Planning Act to "encourage the conservation, development and utilization of water and related land resources ... on a comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal Government, States, localities, and private enterprises."[31]" The federal law gives the the federal courts jurisdiction. This is NOT analogous to the subject of secession, for there is NO federal act on secession. Nor could there be a federal act on secession. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to legislate on the issue of secession. I suggest we stick with fireworks.
"The 'government' I am talking about in the quote is the Federal government." You are ignoring state gov'ts, who are likewise responsible to their citizenry. You are ignoring a state's right to pass its own laws, based on its own sovereignty, without the consent of any other state or the fed.
Taken at face value, that puts Mississippi back into the status of a US territory. Not so. See Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 77 (1941)("Save for the powers committed by the Constitution to the Union, the State of Florida has retained the status of a sovereign. Florida was admitted to the Union 'on equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatsoever'. And the power given to Congress by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution to admit new States relate only to such States as are equal to each other 'in power, dignity, and authority, each competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself'. Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 567 , 31 S.Ct. 688, 690.") It looks like I have it right. Once admitted, states are co-equal. When Florida seceeded, it retained its sovereignty. Same for Mississippi.
"When their acts infringe upon others, they are limited in their power. Among other things, this is one reason jurisdiction in all such matters was given to the Supreme Court of the United States by the Constitution." At risk of sounding condescending, I spent a whole semester studying federal court jurisdiction. You're just wrong. I've tried to explain it. It hasn't taken.
"NJ is allowed to do what it likes as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others or violate Federal law." No, NJ is allowed to do what it likes regardless of interfering with the rights of other states as long as it does not violate the Constitution or constitutional federal law.
Last edited by russ_aukerman; 06-22-2006 at 04:48 PM.
I refer you to your post #199 where you stated to trice:
"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?"
Then you replied to my post where I gave examples of secessionists claimed that freedom was dependent on slavery in your post #217:
"Calhoun and Hunter's quotes are not necessarily saying slavery is essential to freedom."
But it is rather obvious that Calhoun and Hunter feel slavery enhances the defense of human liberty and a respectable system of civilization cannot be had unless its foundations are not laid in the institution of domestic slavery. While Hunter does not 'directly' refer to freedom, Calhoun leaves very little doubt that human liberty is enhanced by having a system of slavery in place.
You further state: "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."
While the statement makes no sense to you or me here in the 21st century, it is definately not taken out of context. The paper is claiming that without slavery, freedom is not possible without it, in black and white for all its readership to see. It may make no sense to you, but there it is.
You continue: "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."
I agree with you, but remember, Dew was trying to justify the institution of slavery to his students and attacks from the North. Rome and Greece were looked upon with much admiration during this period and many times was used as an example or justification in order to get a teaching point across or an opinion on social or political questions. And again, this is a Southern secessionists making the statement that, "great men of antiquity believed slavery necessary to keep alive the spirit of freedom. This is his historical proof to his class, his region and to any who would listen, slavery was necessary to keep alive the spirit of freedom.
As for Wise, you state: "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. Rediculous. Poor Southerners did not enjoy the same social status as the rich, regardless of how many slaves the South had."
Here, with Wise, we are in complete agreement.
It is interesting how Wise's statement, "The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to euality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men." was recieved when he made them. Wise made these comments in the House of Representatives when he was a Congressman from Virginia, during the infamous debate over the infamous 'gag rule' on slavery. It was recorded in the House Journal, The Congressional Globe that when Wise finished this line, there was 'great laughter' in the House at the absurdity of his statement.
As to your question, do I believe that this was a common belief in the South, that freedom depended on slavery? I do not know for certain. I just know that when you asked Trice if there had been anyone who had said this, I was very familiar with the debate in Congress over the gag rule and that these comments had been made by those who advocated Southern secession.
My intent was simply to prove that there were those who did say such. Whether they believed very much or were convinced of the fact they needed slavery in order to be free, I only have their words to view.
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
In reply to your post #220, I remember well your 'cut and paste' article from our previous debates. I wasn't convinced then and still find your reasoning a bit flawed.
But let me take this opportunity to repeat one of Cash's posts when he replied to you.
From the book, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, by James G. Randall:
"On the Union side, the binding effect of the Constitution upon the States, and the impossibility of secession as a right within the Constitution, were vigorously argued. Though there were many able champions of this view, the arguments most worth quoting were, perhaps, that of President Lincoln in his message to the special session of Congress on the fourth of July, 1861, and [John Lothrop] Motley's able "Letter to the London Times," published in 1861, parts of which are reproduced here:
"John Lothrop Motley set forth the reasons why the United States Government was under the necessiy of forcibly resisting secession. His argument against the constitutional validity of secession is one of the ablest statements of the Union point of view. Motley stated that before 1787 we were a "league of petty sovereignties" and that in the few years of the league's existence we sank into a condition of impotence so that life and property were insecure, laws could not be enforced, and we were unable either to guarantee the fulfillment of our part of the treaty with England or to obtain England's fulfillment of her obligations. But the sagacious men of that time, having "had enough of a confederacy," made a truly national government. As the chief concern of the men of the time was to cure the defects of the old confederacy, they made a government which operated not through the States, but directly upon every individual in the country, exercising supreme powers, while the States were "prohibited...from exercising any of the great functions of sovereignty." He continued:
The right of revolution is indisputable....There can be nothing plainer...that the American right of revolution. But then it should be called revolution. "Secession, as a revolutionary right," said Daniel Webster..."Is intelligible. As a right to be proclaimed in the midst of civil commotions, and asserted at the head of armies,I can understand it. But as a practical right, existing under the Constitution,....it seems to be nothing but an absurdity, for its supposes resistance to Government under the authority of Government itself; it supposes dismemberment without violating the principles of Union; it supposes opposition to law without crime;...it supposes the total overthrow of Government without revolution."
Having noted the important clauses of the Constitution by which the States were shorn of the attributes of sovereignty, being denied the power to coin money, maintain armies, make compacts, and the like, Motley proceeded thus:
Could language be more Imperial? Could the claim to State "sovereignty" be more completely disposed of at a word? How can that be sovereign...which has voluntarily accepted a surpreme law from something which it acknowledges as superior?
The Constitution is perpetual, not provisional or temporary. It is made for all time--"for ourselves and our posterity." It is absolute within its sphere. "This Constitution [...] shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Of what value, then, is a law of a State declaring its connection with the Union dissolved? The Constitution remains supreme, and is bound to assert its supremacy till overpowered by force...
But it is sometimes asked why the Constitution did not make a special provision against the right of secession....It would have been puerile for the Constitution to say formally to each State, "Thou shalt not secede."...This Constitution is supreme, whatever laws a State may enact, says the organic law. Was it necessary to add, "and not State shall enact a law of secession"? To add to a great statute...a phrase such as "and be it further enacted that the said law shall not be violated," would scarcely seem to strengthen the statute.
It is strange that Englishmen [to whom this letter was addressed] should find difficulty in understanding that the United States Government is a nation among the nations of the earth...The "United States" happens to be a plural title, but the Commonwealth thus designated, is a unit, "e pluribus unum."
....That great law [the Constitution]...was ratified by the people of all the land...It was promulgated in the name of the people. "We, the people of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution." It was ratified by the people--not by the States acting through their Governments, ...but by the people electing especial delegates within each State; and...in none of these ratifying Conventions was any reserve made of a State's right to repeal the Union or to secede. And thus, when the ratifications had been made, a new Commonwealth took its place among the nations of the earth. The effects of the new Constitution were almost magical. Order sprang out of chaos. Law resumed its reign, degts were collected, life and property became secure, the national debt was funded and...paid...At last we were a nation.
Neither the opponents nor friends of the new Government in the first generation after its establishment held the doctrine of secession...Each party continued to favor or oppose a strict construction of the instrument; but the doctrine of nullification and secession was a plant of later growth. It was an accepted fact that the United States was not a confederacy.
Like you said, Russ, it's a 'golden oldie' from another thread and debate, but it is no less true when in answering some of your views.
Until next time,
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
Tim -"The power of one state to take actions that affect other states is limited by the obligations to and rights of the affected states."
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
I am no expert on water rights. However, see, http://www.law.pace.edu/landuse/wate.html
where I found that "In 1962, President John F. Kennedy instituted major changes in federal water policy emphasizing river basin planning[29] and setting as a goal the development of comprehensive plans for all major river basins by 1970.[30] In 1965, Congress enacted the Water Resources Planning Act to "encourage the conservation, development and utilization of water and related land resources ... on a comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal Government, States, localities, and private enterprises."[31]" The federal law gives the the federal courts jurisdiction.
No. As I already said, the Colorado River water rights issue has been ongoing since the 1800s. No law passed in 1962 gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction to cases it was hearing up to a century earlier. It is the Constitution itself that gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over any and all Federal laws passed by the Congress.
If you want to go far enough back to find Federal legislation authorizing anything there, you'll have to trace your way back through things like the McCarran Amendment of 1952 and a whole slew of others to the 1866 Mine Act, which split Federal water rights into two classes: those involving navigable streams and those involving non-navigable streams, allowing and recognizing claims on the non-navigable streams. Then you need to go further back into history to see why the Federal government had those rights, and the basis for them, and why the Federal government retained them in the territories even when it created states out of the territories.
Granted, there are few legal matters more complex than water rights -- but do you really think the issue of a "right of secession" would be a simple one in law? One of the reasons for the split in water rights in 1866 was to recognize and provide a means to adjudicate all the conflicting claims -- and that included not only state, territorial, and local legislation, but also the claims of Mexico and the various Indian tribes, including claims that were merely based on custom never formally recognized by legislation or treaty.
Not everything in the law can be traced to specific wording in one particular document. If you think so, why not show us where in the Constitution it explicitly delegates jurisdiction over water rights claims to the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
This is NOT analogous to the subject of secession, for there is NO federal act on secession. Nor could there be a federal act on secession. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to legislate on the issue of secession. I suggest we stick with fireworks.
This is pigeon-holing. You do not wish to see the whole issue, so you will continue to insist on using an example that does not apply.
Once again, a "right of secession" from the United States is a "right" or "power" that only is relevant and applicable within the Constitution. No sovereign nation has a "right of secession" by virtue of being sovereign; it is simply not an aspect of "sovereignity".
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Tim -"The 'government' I am talking about in the quote is the Federal government."
You are ignoring state gov'ts, who are likewise responsible to their citizenry. You are ignoring a state's right to pass its own laws, based on its own sovereignty, without the consent of any other state or the fed.
No. I think you need to go back and reread what was said. I made specific reference to state governments in my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Tim -"Taken at face value, that puts Mississippi back into the status of a US territory."
Not so. See Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 77 (1941)("Save for the powers committed by the Constitution to the Union, the State of Florida has retained the status of a sovereign. Florida was admitted to the Union 'on equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatsoever'. And the power given to Congress by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution to admit new States relate only to such States as are equal to each other 'in power, dignity, and authority, each competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself'. Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 567 , 31 S.Ct. 688, 690.") It looks like I have it right. Once admitted, states are co-equal. When Florida seceeded, it retained its sovereignty. Same for Mississippi.
Again, Mississippi repealed all the acts by which it (while a territory of the US) acquired the rights of a state from the Federal government. Having done so, why do they retain what the Federal government gave them?
I admit such an act is very convenient to the secessionists. Other than that, what basis do you have for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Tim -"When their acts infringe upon others, they are limited in their power. Among other things, this is one reason jurisdiction in all such matters was given to the Supreme Court of the United States by the Constitution."
At risk of sounding condescending, I spent a whole semester studying federal court jurisdiction. You're just wrong. I've tried to explain it. It hasn't taken.
Good for you. It is a long time since I took my Constitutional Law course.
What did they teach you was the basis for Federal court jurisdiction? Perhaps Article III, Section 1 and Section 2, of the Constitution, as modified by the Eleventh Amendment? If so, doesn't that simply mean I have this right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Tim -"NJ is allowed to do what it likes as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others or violate Federal law."
No, NJ is allowed to do what it likes regardless of interfering with the rights of other states as long as it does not violate the Constitution or constitutional federal law.
You would be wrong on this. Courts have long recognized factors you are ignoring. As I said before, NY would not be allowed to divert the Delaware, robbing the states of PA and NJ of their water rights.
"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."
Russ,
Suppose no "power of secession" ever existed to be delegated to the Federal government or retained by the states. Suppose it simply isn't a right or power the states ever had. Then what?
Yet we see you always criticizing Northerners and never admitting any particular Southerner acted badly in this issue of secession. Seems odd.
Are you speaking for everyone? That I defend what I believe shouldn't seem any more odd than your own behavior towards the Confederates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
You seem to think that the beliefs or feelings of people give them an immunity from the law. That is not so.
Tim, why do you think Pryor and Wigfall weren't prosecuted? Why did the Feds simply boot Wigfall out of Congress rather than throw him into prison?
Do you think that early into the Revolution the Britts should have sought out and prosecuted Washington, Harry Lee, Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, and all the rest of the Revolutionary leaders and heroes? No doubt, they would have if they could, but do you think it would have been just? Were those men traitors or is it only traitorous when the action is against your government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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*.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
No, I don't consider them to be traitors. They were men following the dictates of their consciences as they were taught was not only their right, but their duty, by their fore fathers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
Perhaps from your pov there is a hard line. But you are right, I don't wish to acknowledge it since I'm not in the habit of acknowledging what I do not believe in. These individuals had already chosen the Confederate States of America as their country. Ruffin had joined the Confederate army and Pryor had also made a choice. Had Virginia not seceded, he likely would have remained in the Confederate States.
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
My intent was simply to prove that there were those who did say such. Whether they believed very much or were convinced of the fact they needed slavery in order to be free, I only have their words to view.
Thank you for your information and input. I was unaware of the "freedom depends on slavery" theory held by some people. The fact that these were learned men who should be intellectually above such ridiculous ideas is just astounding. Actually, it sounds like they were running out of new arguments and grasping at straws in order to further their secession agenda.
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
Suppose no "power of secession" ever existed to be delegated to the Federal government or retained by the states. Suppose it simply isn't a right or power the states ever had. Then what?
Regards,
Tim
Excuse me for butting in, but I'd like to ask a question. How can you "suppose" that the right of secession never existed? Secession existed. How else could the Southern states have seceded if there was no such thing? Since secession is real, albeit, intangible, but real. You can't simply suppose it the right to do it doesn't exist.
Did not the colonies have "power of secession" to remove themselves from the Brittish government? So it did exist. Where could it have disappeared to between American independence and statehood?
Powers weren't objects that could be put into a basket and either handed to the central government or kept for future use. As sovereigns the states had all powers to do anything they wished to do. Once they joined the Union they gave up some of those powers to the central gov, but retained ALL the rest, which included absolutely everything not prohibited to them by the Constitution they agreed upon.
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
I remain speechless and totally floored with your eloquence and logic. You are, of course, deluded and mostly wrong, but I must acknowledge and do admire your presentations. Hot dang! I'm so glad to see you back on board!
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Excuse me for butting in, but I'd like to ask a question. How can you "suppose" that the right of secession never existed? Secession existed. How else could the Southern states have seceded if there was no such thing? Since secession is real, albeit, intangible, but real. You can't simply suppose it the right to do it doesn't exist.
Easily. There is no example of it in history before 1860-61, and no basis for a claim that existed other than a theory.
The seceding states claimed that a legal "right of secession" existed. This can only be a legal right inside the Union governed by the Constitution. We fought a Civil War over the issue, the South having put the decision on the existence of the right to a trial by combat. They lost.
As Robert E. Lee and many others said, the "secession" of 1860-61 is merely revolution. It is not a legal right at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Did not the colonies have "power of secession" to remove themselves from the Brittish government? So it did exist. Where could it have disappeared to between American independence and statehood?
The Founding Fathers themselves did not believe such a legal right existed. They understood they were in rebellion against their sovereign, and that only the success of their rebellion would allow them to prosper. They were not kidding when they pledged their lives to it. All they had to do to see what happened to rebels who lost was to cast their eyes toward Scotland in the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745. Had they lost, their fate might easily have been what the Highlanders met at the hands of the Duke of Cumberland, called "The Butcher" by the survivors.
The American Revolution is an example of what was considered the "natural right of revolution". It is not the unilateral legal "right of secession" claimed by the Confederacy in 1860-61. Jefferson Davis and other major Confederate leaders adamantly denied they were engaging in a revolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Powers weren't objects that could be put into a basket and either handed to the central government or kept for future use. As sovereigns the states had all powers to do anything they wished to do. Once they joined the Union they gave up some of those powers to the central gov, but retained ALL the rest, which included absolutely everything not prohibited to them by the Constitution they agreed upon.
But the Constitution, through the Tenth Amendment, does treat powers exactly in this fashion, as "objects that could be put into a basket and either handed to the central government or kept for future use."
Independent, sovereign nations have no "power of secession", just as they have no power to command that the Moon be made of cheese or the Earth be flat instead of round. It is not an aspect of being independent, nor is it an aspect of sovereignity. It is merely the legal ability to get out of an agreement, an escape clause, and so only meaningful within the agreement itself. As a result, "secession" is not a power that could be delegated by the states, nor retained by them.
It might exist within the Constitution or it might not. But the only body empowered to tell you if it does or not is the Supreme Court -- and the secessionists made no attempt to find out what the Court might say. No state legislature, no President, no Congress, no individual citizen has the jurisdiction to answer this; we can only have opinions on the matter. The Supreme Court gets to make a decision on it.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
