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 secessionists believed they were acting within their rights. The compact was broken.
Broken by who? The secessionists or someone else? In what way was it broken, and why does that justify what the secessionists actually did?
There were, for example, leading secessionists and Fire-Eaters who said at the South Carolina Convention in December of 1860 that they had always believed the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 was unconstitutional. Yet the slave states had taken full advantage of that law and used it to violate "states' rights" throughout the rest of the nation. Doesn't that imply that at least some of the people guilty of grievous violations were secessionsts? Is their punishment for that to be getting away with anything they want? What judgement should be applied against them for their actions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
To go to the SC would have been the same as asking the Union for permission to secede. Putting this right to secession up for question would be admitting that there was some doubt, of which there was none.
Hmm. Kind of like negotiating the separation with your partners, you mean? Or obeying the oath they all swore to uphold the Constitution, giving jurisdiction on all such controversies to the Supreme Court? Why is it that secessionists believe the "right of secession" allows them to act like a bunch of schoolyard bullies, grabbing whatever they can? Why is it offensive to secessionists to act as law-abiding and prudent men?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Why didn't the Federal Government take their complaint to the SC?
They could have, but their position did not require it and indeed the Executive branch would not normally ask a court such a question before taking action. The Supreme Court had already indicated they would not hear hypothetical questions to render opinions. What was needed was a test case.
Until such a "right" was actually proven to exist the Federal government has all the power and right needed to do as they did, because the actions of the secessionists are those of lawbreakers -- and it is the duty and obligation of the Executive to enforce and execute the laws of the United States. Even Buchanan understood that, although he shied from actually taking action, preferring to shift the onus onto Lincoln.
But everything that Lincoln did up to and including the calling of troops in April is completely legal and constitutional. There is no doubt of his legal standing on any of it; in fact, the argument can and was made that he was required to do as he did. He had no power to recognize secession, and an obligation to defend the US against insurrection.
The seceding states, OTOH, took many actions that are clearly illegal under both Federal law and their own law between December of 1860 and April of 1861. If they desired peaceful and legal separation, these were foolish moves on their part.
Broken by who? The secessionists or someone else? In what way was it broken, and why does that justify what the secessionists actually did?
The compact was first broken by some of the Northern states who claimed to listen to a higher law than the Constitution. Of course there were many more grievances and reasons why the South wanted independence, but the compact was broken by the North's refusal to obey the law. As Daniel Webster pointed out:
"The Union is a Union of States founded upon Compact. How is it to be supposed that when different parties enter into a compact for certain purposes either can disregard one provision of it and expect others to observe the rest? If the Northern States willfully and deliberately refuse to carry out their part of the Constitution, the South would be no longer bound to keep the compact. A bargain broken on one side is broken on all sides." (Daniel Webster, Capon Springs Speech, 1851)
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
There were, for example, leading secessionists and Fire-Eaters who said at the South Carolina Convention in December of 1860 that they had always believed the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 was unconstitutional. Yet the slave states had taken full advantage of that law and used it to violate "states' rights" throughout the rest of the nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Doesn't that imply that at least some of the people guilty of grievous violations were secessionsts?
"Some secessionists" and "some fire eaters" are responsible for what "grievous violations"? What did they violate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Is their punishment for that to be getting away with anything they want? What judgement should be applied against them for their actions?
I'm afraid you are being too vague for me to follow you. You say they (secessionists and fire eaters?) got away with anything they wanted. Please be specific. What did they "get away with"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Hmm. Kind of like negotiating the separation with your partners, you mean? Or obeying the oath they all swore to uphold the Constitution, giving jurisdiction on all such controversies to the Supreme Court? Why is it that secessionists believe the "right of secession" allows them to act like a bunch of schoolyard bullies, grabbing whatever they can? Why is it offensive to secessionists to act as law-abiding and prudent men?
With all due respect, Tim, it's difficult to answer your questions since they don't even remotely sound like they apply to what happened. I've already explained why they felt released from the compact. As far as your claim of the secessionists acting like "schoolyard bullies, grabbing whatever they can" is ludicrous. They seceded the Union, asked the Federals to go home and leave them in peace. They refused. They hardly "grabbed" anything. The geographical location of the forts were impossible to send North so they offered compensation for them. But, you know all that, which leaves me wondering why all the hyperbole?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
They could have, but their position did not require it and indeed the Executive branch would not normally ask a court such a question before taking action. The Supreme Court had already indicated they would not hear hypothetical questions to render opinions. What was needed was a test case.
The Southern position did not require it either. If the secessionists were lawbreakers they lived in a Union they never bargained for. They subscribed to a Jeffersonian view of government and were merely excercising their rights as states of the Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Until such a "right" was actually proven to exist the Federal government has all the power and right needed to do as they did, because the actions of the secessionists are those of lawbreakers -- and it is the duty and obligation of the Executive to enforce and execute the laws of the United States. Even Buchanan understood that, although he shied from actually taking action, preferring to shift the onus onto Lincoln.
As Americans the Southern people fought just as hard, just as bravely and made just as many sacrifices to gain freedom as did their Northern counterparts. They never envisioned a day when the Union would betray them or deny them that freedom. You are claiming there was a duty and obligation to enforce laws that did not exist. You are calling the Southern states lawbreakers over laws that they never broke because there was no such laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
But everything that Lincoln did up to and including the calling of troops in April is completely legal and constitutional. There is no doubt of his legal standing on any of it; in fact, the argument can and was made that he was required to do as he did. He had no power to recognize secession, and an obligation to defend the US against insurrection. .
You think everything Lincoln did through calling in troops was legal? You have an odd definition of "legal". Suspending habeas corpus which was not within his realm of power to do was illegal. Ordering the arrest of the 84 year-old, Chief Justice Tanney, may not have been illegal but it was certainly unsavory and goes to show what Lincoln thought of the Supreme Court. Tanney was only asking that he obey the laws of the U.S. and protect civil rights. He did a lot more that if it wasn't a crime it sure as heck should be. Waging war on women and children of the South is one of them. As Rev. C. Chauncey Burr, of New Jersey observed:
"We had no right to burn their wheat-fields, steal their pianos, spoons or jewelry. Mr. Lincoln had stolen a good many thousand negroes, but for every negro he had thus stolen, he had stolen ten thousand spoons. It had been said that, if the South would lay down their arms, they would be received back into the Union. The South could not honorably lay down her arms, for she was fighting for her honor."
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
The seceding states, OTOH, took many actions that are clearly illegal under both Federal law and their own law between December of 1860 and April of 1861. If they desired peaceful and legal separation, these were foolish moves on their part.
Secession was the only chance the Southern states had for independence. Lincoln wasn't about to let them go not under any circumstances. We have already seen how he reacted when Supreme Court Justice Tanney disagreed with him. And...after all, as the man said, "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?"
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
In your post #245 you state, "I give you THE primary source - the Constitution."
Not exactly, Russ, what you gave was your interpretation of the Constitution and your continual denial of what that document really says and a long continued denial of Supreme Court cases and what they have said that document means.
Where you state my 'willingness' to take a 'Randall and a Motley' over the Constitution is also incorrect. What I tried to do was provide even further evidence that there are many other sources that support the reading of the Constitution as it pertains to the idea that secession was NOT a right, legal or otherwise, hidden somewhere within that document.
And Russ, why the, 'what one person says is unimportant' attitude when it comes to his or her views on the Constitution? You are aware that it took a lot of one, singular persons, to debate, write and then approve the final document. It took a whole lot of individual persons to vote to ratify in those special conventions. Frankly, when you dismiss the views of one person, I think you are missing the whole point of the Constitution and what it was designed to do.
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
You think everything Lincoln did through calling in troops was legal? You have an odd definition of "legal".
Rose: Tim was very careful to limit his statement to the time of "calling for troops." Every example you cited of "illegality" was after that action and subject to considerable debate about each and every one -- which Tim was kind enough to not introduce into this thread.
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
Rose: Tim was very careful to limit his statement to the time of "calling for troops." Every example you cited of "illegality" was after that action and subject to considerable debate about each and every one -- which Tim was kind enough to not introduce into this thread.
Ole
Yes, it seems I got a bit carried away there. Illegalities by Mr. Lincoln were mostly committed after the call for troops. But upon the calling of troops six governors rejected Lincoln’s call as illegal. Whether it was illegal is debatable, but many believed it to be true. The governor of North Carolina, John Ellis, responded,
I regard the levy of troops made by the administration for the purpose of subjugating the states of the South as in violation of the Constitution, and a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina.
The other five governors answered in similar fashion.
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
"'Secession' is only a legal concept. It only has meaning inside the Constitution...." According to Webster's, secession means: "1. withdrawal into privacy or solicitude...2. formal withdrawal from an organization. There's no need to pigeon-hole it. ;-) A church could withdraw from a church organization; a club from a club organization; a chapter from a fraternal organization, etc. Isn't your position on secession political as well as legal?
"It is entirely about Federal law...." No, its about state sovereign powers NOT delegated to the fed.
"...the Federal government also asserts water rights claims inside single states." That the water itself flows from state to state would likely be enough for the USSCt. under its holdings on the interstate commerce clause. And there was plenty of naval warfare on the rivers during the CW. No doubt felonies and captures occured there.
"Secession -- as attempted in 1860-61 -- had vast impacts that damaged the rights and property of others. The members of the Union are not allowed to do that with impunity." According to the Constitution, they are. My analogies are based on the exercise of state power, within a state's boundaries, that have or may have an affect on people and property outside a state's borders. And my point is that such affect outside the boundaries of a state does not give rise to a 'controversy between the states' for federal court jurisdiction to apply. Art. III does not give the federal courts, including the USSCt., jurisdiction over a state's exercise of its own sovereign powers, even if it 'affects' others.
"They chose to restrict themselves, to bind themselves into a Union with others. They created the mutual commitments they now wish to break." That's true. Like any contract having ongoing obligations but not having a specified duration, any party may withdraw from the contract at will. You might want to look up 'at will' contracts.
"If they did get it by becoming states, and decide they wish to reverse that process, why do they retain it?" The simple answer is that they decided to keep it. Remember that the Constitution only provides for one class of states, and they are co-equal. Upon secession, it was for that state -now independent nation - to keep or delegate anew any of that sovereignty they so thought best.
"Concepts like 'easy' and 'convenient' have no standing in the discussion we are having." Yes and no. Understanding constitutional structure and text requires work and may not be easy. Once accomplished, though, it is remarkably easy to conclude that secession is a question left to the states under the 10th Amend.
"...it proves nothing." What more proof do you need than that the seceeded states went about their business as independent nations.
What I gave you was a quote of the supremacy clause and what effect the common meaning of those words have on the topic of secession. There was no need for 'interpretation.' Don't hide behind that 'its only your interpretation' nonsense. Look at the words. Be guided by them.
If you care to go back and look, you'll note that I addressed each of your cases, and those of others. I'm not ignoring them. They just don't say what you think they say. And none of them addressed the question of secession.
The 'one person's opinion doesn't matter' thing is a reflection of the fact that the Constitution is a product of many person's negotiation and compromise. It does not reflect the intent of one person, but of all of the people who created and ratified it. These people put their intentions, collectively, into a document. It is the document which became the supreme law, not the intention of any one person. It is also a basic legal tenet that you derive the meaning of a legal document from the four corners of that document, and that the intent of those who drafted the document is presumed to reside in the words they chose to use in the document.
What more proof do you need than that the seceeded states went about their business as independent nations.
Russ? Do you want to think a bit more about what you are claiming here?
Suppose you were looking at a situation where some people were in a business together. One declares he's leaving, posts armed guards around a warehouse, fires warning shots when the other partners approach, and starts acting as if he were an independent business.
How does that prove that he actually has a "right" to act as he did? He might simply be misguided and have no such right. Or it might be that he is a thief. His actions do not prove anything about what his "rights" are.
Same with your "right of secession" argument. It is possible that the states might or might not have had such a "right of secession" in 1860. Both sides of the question were argued. But the actions of the seceding states do nothing to prove they had such a right.
Yes, it seems I got a bit carried away there. Illegalities by Mr. Lincoln were mostly committed after the call for troops.
I can recall nothing that would qualify here. I am interested in what you think these "illegalities" are. Would you list a few, please?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
But upon the calling of troops six governors rejected Lincoln’s call as illegal. Whether it was illegal is debatable, but many believed it to be true. The governor of North Carolina, John Ellis, responded,
I regard the levy of troops made by the administration for the purpose of subjugating the states of the South as in violation of the Constitution, and a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina.
The other five governors answered in similar fashion.
The call for troops is completely legal under the Militia Acts. It might be argued that Lincoln should have been impeached if he did NOT call for troops in such a situation. The only issue, really, is whether or not Lincoln was right that this was an insurrection. The laws of the United States were certainly being opposed and obstructed, as the authorizing act says.
If they are insurrectionists -- as Lincoln maintained -- he is obligated to put them down and the Militia Law is the only available means for him to use to raise forces to do so. If they actually have a "right of secession" as they claimed, then Lincoln is wrong about the insurrection -- but that would mean the United States was under assault by a foreign power and Lincoln would be need troops to defend the nation. Again, only the Militia Act is available to Lincoln.
His ability to do this is also affected by whether or not the Congress is in session. It was not, and was not scheduled to come back for many months. So Lincoln called for a special session to convene on July 4. (obviously his choice was dictated by many things, including PR, but also including several others related to timing.)
The opinions and actions of the governors are noted. The six you are thinking of did refuse to comply. I don't think Lincoln called on the 7 states that had already declared for secession, but maybe he did. That leaves a large number of governors who did call out their militia as requested. Neither support nor refusal proves that what Lincoln did was legal or illegal -- only that there was controversy about it and some states obeyed the call while some states did not.
Tim - "'Secession' is only a legal concept. It only has meaning inside the Constitution...."
According to Webster's, secession means: "1. withdrawal into privacy or solicitude...2. formal withdrawal from an organization. There's no need to pigeon-hole it. ;-) A church could withdraw from a church organization; a club from a club organization; a chapter from a fraternal organization, etc. Isn't your position on secession political as well as legal?
Nope. The seceding states were the ones claiming they had a legal right under the Constitution to act as they did. Either they do or they do not. They were specific about what they were referring to and you, it seems, wish to broaden the scope to include the BPOE, the KofC, religious groups and retreats into the wilderness. How come? Why not restrict yourself as they did? Could it be because it has been determined long since -- first de facto and then de jure -- that they had no right to act as they did?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
