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.
I find it amusing that we have both come to the same conclusion about each others views.
But I do find it strange that you can speak of the Constitution as being the 'Supreme Law' of the land and then turn right around and 'cotton' to the idea of secession as a legal right hidden in that same document.
russ, you have consistently denied supreme court rulings before and after the Civil War that gave this supreme law and power over the states, restricting their powers in favor of the national government. You continue to superimpose your views over what is really being said. I don't have to hide behind 'it's only your interpretation nonsense' as I already have a past experience of debating with you on this topic.
In spite of the fact that when the States had formed a Confederacy that did NOT work under the Articles of Confederation and were taking steps to correct those problems by introducing a Constitution giving the central government more power and despite the fact that the debates and conventions before ratification of that document clearly stated that once you joined this new union it would take a combined OK to leave it, you continue to choose to interpret that information into a format of your liking.
Add to this the idea that hidden somewhere in that document is a self-destruct clause, a 'get out of the Union free card' that no other nation in the history of this planet has claimed or said existed in its founding documents, I have to admit I just don't see the logic in that argument. Its almost as if you are agreeing with the idea that an arm or leg could choose to leave me at any time and I must accept the idea of being crippled because there is a 'natural' right for my body to separate. Sure doesn't seem that way to me, especially over something as unnatural as the right to keep people in bondage. It reminds me of the quote of John Quincy Adams made on April 30, 1839.
"In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a State to nullify an act of Congress, is too absurd for argument, and too odious for discussion. The right of a State to secede from the Union, is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence."
I'll take this man's views over yours, russ, because he was closer to the founders and their meaning than you or I ever will be.
That's all I can see and if that be my fault, I'll live with it.
Until that 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 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.
As I have previously mentioned, the US Congress separated US water rights into two classes: rights on navigable waters and rights on non-navigable waters. I have also mentioned that these waters may be dry most of the time or only a few inches deep. Naval warfare does not occur on such waters.
As I have also said previously, the US asserts water rights on streams and bodies that are entirely inside a single state (i.e., they do not flow from one state to another) and so it is hard to believe such a claim is based on the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.
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.
Well, I don't agree with the "compact" theory and I have never seen a timeline of this "first" you are talking about. Would you like to lay it out for us?
If you are talking about the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, you might want to consider that this is probably one of the two biggest violations of "states' rights" and individual rights in the history of the US Congress (the other being the Alien and Sedition Acts, IMHO). Among other people, leading secessionists/Fire-Eaters in South Carolina (Rhett, Meminger, etc.) believed that act was unconstitutional. So if that is what you are going to base your claim of "first" on, you will immediately have a grave difficulty.
It would also appear that, if you want to claim a "first" of any kind for the North, it will have to go back to the days before the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina, since that also appears to be a clear violation of this "compact" on the part of a Southern state.
I look forward eagerly to your list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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)
Daniel Webster was a great man and even a greater orator. Personally, I have always been puzzled by this quote, because it contradicts so much of his earlier lifework. I have never seen an actual copy of the text to see what he meant. Would you happen to have a link to a complete text somewhere I could review?
I say contradicted because for decades Webster was adamantly and vehemently opposed to the theory that the United States was a "compact". For example, see his Reply To Hayne speech (Hayne was a Calhoun disciple) and his later 1833 The Constitution Not a Compact Between Sovereign States speech in the Senate during the struggle over Nullification. His debates with Calhoun shows the range of possible opinion on the issue, presented by some of our nation's greatest speakers: both have strong views they undoubtedly "felt", but neither looks to have crushed the other or proved him wrong.
My guess about the motivation for the Capon Springs speech in 1851 comes down to practical politics. It is known that Webster believed that the Compromise of 1850 had settled the slavery issue for good and all. He saw the territory of slavery as limited by compromise everywhere in the US (except in territory west of Texas, where he believed it would flounder for reasons of geography and nature). This being the case, he felt slavery would eventually whither away and die (just like Lincoln would also feel limiting it would eventually kill it) and that the main cause of divisiveness between the states would eventually disappear.
Webster was then Fillmore's Secretary of State. He was angling for the 1852 Whig Presidential nomination when he gave this 1851 speech, and to be successful he would need Southern slave state support. So my guess is that, in the time-honored tradition of politicians pandering for votes, he moderated his views to soothe over some disagreements. Thus I would like to see the complete text of his speech to see the complete picture of his presentation.
If so, the idea did not work and he needn't have bothered. In the 1852 Convention's first ballot, Webster got 29 votes. General Scott received 131, and President Fillmore received 133. Scott ended up with the nomination. Webster went home, leaving politics, and died before the year was out.
However, if you want to play dueling Webster quotes, there are far more denying the US was a compact to throw about.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
"Some secessionists" and "some fire eaters" are responsible for what "grievous violations"? What did they violate?
If you believe in the "compact" theory, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 was a grievous violation of the sovereignity of the states and "compact".
Among other things, it set aside large portions of the Bill of Rights for individuals, such as trial by jury of your peers, and abolished Habeas Corpus in the cases under the law. A great many different violations of the "compact" if you really want to look at it.
For example, it sets aside all the state judicial systems and uses Federal military/police force to compel the states to do things they would not do. This is ten years before Lincoln called for troops to enforce the laws in the South. The secessionists and Fire-Eaters talked out of both sides of their mouth on issues of "states rights": perfectly willing to set them aside and crush them when it suited their purpose, wailing about abuse if anyone touched them.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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.
Rose, seven states voted for secession and formed the Confederacy before Lincoln ever left Illinois on his journey to Washington. They had used force to grab property and funds, threatened to harm Federal employees, taken equipment and possession of posts at the point of a gun. Some of this the states did before they passed ordinances of secession.
All of this is before Lincoln took the oath of office and before Taney said a thing. Lincoln had studiously avoided making any public statements during that period, IIRR. On what basis do you justify all these prior abusive acts by the seceding states?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
And...after all, as the man said, "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?"
I have always wondered about this quote. It certainly sounds like the sort of witty and sardonic remark Lincoln might have made, but otherwise I have been unable to place it. Is there any basis for showing that he actually did?
Do you have an original source for it? Who was he speaking to when he said it? When was it and what was the context? Or do you have a link to a complete text of the dialogue?
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"?
In the context it was written in, it was fairly clear. I have often spoken to you directly about it in the last week or two.
However, if you do not recall it, how about the many times I have asked you to justify the threats of force, the seizures of buildings, posts, forts, equipment and vessels, the actual use of force, the seizure of funds (such as government payrolls and the $600,000 in specie in the New Orleans Custom House), the siege of Federal forts, and finally the actual assault with intent to kill on Fort Sumter? All occurred before Lincoln called for his first extra man, most before he even reached office, many before the states even seceded. All seem to me to be illegal under Federal law, and probably under the laws of the individual states committing the violent, aggressive and abusive acts themselves. Just why should they be allowed to act so badly with impunity?
Also, Rose, I understand how they "felt" completely. Their "feelings" excuse nothing. Their "feelings" justify nothing. All "feelings" do is help us understand their motivation. If they acted wrongly because of their "feelings", they would still be wrong no matter how much you or I might sympathize with their "feelings".
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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.
It does not matter how they "felt". It matters whether they were correct in the claim they asserted. If they were wrong, they had no "right of secession" to assert and so everything they did would be in the wrong.
As to "even remotely sound like they apply to what happened", I have often spoken to you of the long history of abusive and aggressive, violent actions by the secessionists between December of 1860 and April of 1861. You seem to keep saying you are not in the habit of acknowledging what you do not believe -- yet the record remains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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?
This, again, is an example of refusing to acknowledge what was done because you do not wish to believe it. Once again: how do you justify the threats of force, the seizures of buildings, posts, forts, equipment and vessels, the actual use of force, the seizure of funds (such as government payrolls and the $600,000 in specie in the New Orleans Custom House), the siege of Federal forts, and finally the actual assault with intent to kill on Fort Sumter? All occurred before Lincoln called for his first extra man, most before he even reached office, many before the states even seceded. All seem to me to be illegal under Federal law, and probably under the laws of the individual states committing the violent, aggressive and abusive acts themselves.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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.[/
Forgive me for being blunt about this: Your comment relates to absolutely nothing I have said here. Appears to simply be an attempt to go off on a tangent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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.
This is simply wrong. It really is illegal to seize Federal property, funds, equipment, and vessels. It really is illegal to threaten Federal troops and employees with armed force. Actually attacking them, as the secessionists eventually did at Ft. Sumter, is also illegal. These acts would be illegal under state law as well as Federal law.
Now I understand that your argument is that the secessionists "felt" they were not bound by these laws. The rest of the country "felt" that they were bound by these laws. The war ended up deciding which one of them had the "right" of it because the South chose to start a shooting war instead of pursuing other means. Obviously, the decision was against the way the secessionists "felt".
But even if we allow your argument, we will find two great difficulties with your position. To begin with, as you have been shown, the seceding states in many cases (at least 6 of the first 7 seceding states) actually committed such illegal acts before they seceded. They were certainly bound by US laws at that time, and it would be the President's responsibility to take action as a result.
After that, of course, we come to the one no secessionist can stomach. Even if the seceding states somehow were absolved of all obligation to the Union on the passing of their Ordinances of Secession, we would have to find they were engaged in deliberate acts of aggressive war against the United States. This, of course, would put them in the wrong as well and totally justify Lincoln in calling for troops to repel the attack upon the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
You think everything Lincoln did through calling in troops was legal?
Absolutely. I have never seen any evidence of any act of his as President in that period that was not legal. I would welcome any you have, but would expect it to be so minor as to be a quibble, given all the years that seem to have gone by without it playing a major note in history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
You have an odd definition of "legal".
I suspect merely an accurate one. I also specified a clear timeframe, and it looks like every single example you brought up occurred after it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Suspending habeas corpus which was not within his realm of power to do was illegal.
Did not occur in the time period I specified. Has since been upheld by the Supreme Court as part of a President's power in an Emergency -- not just for Lincoln, but also for others. Most recently, for President Bush when the JAG lawyers for the Guantanamo detainees argued it was unwarranted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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.
Again, this occurred *after* the time period I specified. Chief Justice Taney had axes of his own to grind, of course, and his position was also very politically motivated -- so please do not paint him as a lilly-white savior of some sort here. Also, please note that the Taney Court routinely supported President Lincoln's actions during the war -- generally over-riding Chief Justice Taney as they did so. This might indicate to you that Taney's position wasn't all that solid in the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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:...
Again, everything you are mentioning -- even if we say your claim was true -- came well after the time period I so clearly stated. We have had several items here where you have done the same thing; it seems a common habit among people who argue for the secession of the South, that they do not wish to put things in the order they occurred and acknowledge what the South did first.
But I have spent a lot of my spare time in life studying wars. Wars are terrible things that should be avoided whenever reasonably possible. But it is rare when any war does not affect the women and the children, the young and the old, the civilian as well as the warrior. When you think they didn't, you usually are not looking at the entire situation. Lincoln did not start the war; he merely accepted it when the South thrust it upon the nation. If you wish to blame someone for the misery of those people, cast your blame upon the government that decided to attack Ft. Sumter in April of 1861.
Well, I don't agree with the "compact" theory and I have never seen a timeline of this "first" you are talking about. Would you like to lay it out for us?
If you are talking about the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, you might want to consider that this is probably one of the two biggest violations of "states' rights" and individual rights in the history of the US Congress (the other being the Alien and Sedition Acts, IMHO). Among other people, leading secessionists/Fire-Eaters in South Carolina (Rhett, Meminger, etc.) believed that act was unconstitutional. So if that is what you are going to base your claim of "first" on, you will immediately have a grave difficulty.
It would also appear that, if you want to claim a "first" of any kind for the North, it will have to go back to the days before the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina, since that also appears to be a clear violation of this "compact" on the part of a Southern state.
I look forward eagerly to your list.
Of course, I was referring to the fugutive slave law. Since secession came afterwards, I noted that the North first broke the compact. You may argue that the Fugitive Slave Law was a violation of state's rights. I don't agree. Also, a couple of secessionist's opinions doesn't change mine and they are hardly representative of all Southerners.
Neither do I agree that nullification by South Carolina was unconstitutional, but if you want to argue that, fine. Let's agree for the sake of argument that South Carolina did, in fact, break the compact first. In that case, I wholeheartedly believe the Northern states had the right to secede from the South.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Daniel Webster was a great man and even a greater orator. Personally, I have always been puzzled by this quote, because it contradicts so much of his earlier lifework. I have never seen an actual copy of the text to see what he meant. Would you happen to have a link to a complete text somewhere I could review?
If there is a complete manuscript of the speech on line, I'm not aware of it. Many sites quote from it and one site specifies it is located in Curtis's book, Life of Webster, Chapt. XXXVII, Vol.II, pp.518, 519.
My guess about the motivation for the Capon Springs speech in 1851 comes down to practical politics.
I suppose that is as good a guess as any. My guess is that Mr. Webster changed his views over the years. He told his audience, in the same speech, "I am as ready to fight and to fall for the constitutional rights of Virginia as I am for those of Massachusetts."
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
However, if you want to play dueling Webster quotes, there are far more denying the US was a compact to throw about.
If that's an invitation, no thanks. I'm not up for playing games. I'm aware of Mr. Webster's earlier views.
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
And yet, how do you reconcile Webster as the one who said, "There can be no such thing as peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility."
And this, "Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish--I beg every body's pardon--as to expect to see any such thing?"
It seems to me the man is pretty hard to mistake about his feelings concerning the very idea that secession could happen in anything but bloody 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
