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.
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.
Clearly, Webster didn't see any way for peaceful secession. That speech, as a whole, was an appeal to settle differences so that we may never see secession become a real threat. Webster was, IMO, an American patriot that recognized the faults of the North as well as the South and he feared we were on a course headed toward secession disaster.
In the same speech he also said:
I will not answer, further than I have, the general statements of the honorable Senator from South Carolina [Calhoun], that the North has prospered at the expense of the South in consequence of the manner of administering this government, in the collecting of its revenues, and so forth. These are disputed topics, and I have no inclination to enter into them. But I will allude to the other complaints of the South, and especially to one which has in my opinion just foundation; and that is, that there has been found at the North, among individuals and among legislators, a disinclination to perform fully their constitutional duties in regard to the return of persons bound to service who have escaped into the free States. In that respect, the South, in my judgment, is right, and the North is wrong.
That coincides with his "broken compact" statements. No where in the speech did Webster assert that the South had no legal right to secede, although, he understood that it wouldn't be allowed to be a peaceful separation if it should come to that (this speech was made nine or ten years prior to secession). In fact, he could scarcely believe that anyone could be serious regarding secession.
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:
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?
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".
Men, like Daniel Webster, who incidentally did believe in the compact theory, and others, believed that the Constitution was not a document to be triffled with. You do not chose to follow what you want to and ignore the parts you do not like. Whether any of the secessionists believed the Fugitive Slave Law to be unconstitutional is a moot point because it WAS a part of the Constitution. The only traitors are those that refused to abide by the law.
We all can argue our theories about interpretation of the Constitution on many points, but the Fugitive Slave Law isn't open for spin. It is very plainly stated and can't be misunderstood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
It's quite an exaggeration to claim the Fugitive Slave Law "set aside ALL state judicial systems. All it did was thwart the laws the states passed exclusively in order to try to squirm out of their obligation to the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
Isn't it a bit unreasonable to blame the secessionists for the issues the Northern states were unhappy with? Secessionists were not responsible for the laws passed by Congress. I think you are blaming the wrong people.
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
"How does that prove that he actually has a 'right' to act as he did?" The facts you give are insufficient to determine if he had the power. (I use the word 'power' to avoid confusion with a determination of 'right or wrong.') If it were me, I'd first look to the partnership agreement. The PA might not define its duration, meaning a partner may withdraw at will. The PA might not give the power of a partner to withdraw from the partnership to the partnership as a whole, nor forbid the power to the individual partner. On this I'd have to conclude that he had the power to withdraw. I'd look at the PA to see what happens to the property of the partnership or, if that didn't answer the question, to state partnership laws. If the withdrawing partner started to do business with partnership property, I might seek an injunction or an accounting and damages. No doubt I'd have to concede that the withdrawing partner is due his/her proportionate share of partnership property. Shooting at the other partners is another issue. If I were one of the other partners, I'd first go to the prosecutor, then to my lawyer to bring a civil claim. I must note that the withdrawing partner clearly had the power to do what he did; proven by the fact that he did it. Whether exercising that power was legal is another question.
"But the actions of the seceding states do nothing to prove they had such a right." So what. There's nothing in the Constitution which requires that the states 'prove' anything before seceeding.
"The call for troops is completely legal under the Militia Acts." The Constitution does not give the fed the authority to forcibly repatriate seceeded states. Therefore, anything in the Militia Acts to the contrary is unconstitutional.
"The laws of the United States were certainly being opposed and obstructed, as the authorizing act says." Wrong. The laws of the US have no application to seceeded states. Those laws could, of course, be enforced in those states remaining in the Union.
"If they are insurrectionists -- as Lincoln maintained...." What any good ostritch would say.
"...the United States was under assault by a foreign power and Lincoln would be need troops to defend the nation." Isn't a declaration of war supposed to precede an invasion of foreign soil? You can't have it both ways. At least not without using the bigger gun; then you can have it any way you want, right or wrong, legal or illegal.
"Why not restrict yourself as they did?" I can't artificially restrict the definition of a word anymore than you can. My point remains that secession is not just a legal concept. It has many applications outside of law or politics.
"I find it amusing that we have both come to the same conclusion about each others views." Me too. Of course, mine are correct. ;-)
"'cotton' to the idea of secession." Just too cute for words. ;-) If you look at John Taylor's posts on the nature of the Constitution, or better yet the supremacy clause itself, you see that the clause restricts its supremacy to federal law. Secession is not federal law.
On the court cases before secession, I've shown you that they dont address the question of secession and/or simply don't have the import that you claim. On those after, they're wrong.
"You continue to superimpose your views over what is really being said." No, I've never really given or been asked for my views on secession. My statements concern the constitutionality of secession, not whether secession is a good or bad thing. It's not my view or interpretation; it's what the Constititution says. And I'll not let my personal views change, alter, misdefine, add or delete words in the Constitution.
"...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,...." Read John Taylor's 'nature of the Constitution,' first post, for opposing statements. Or don't because, as I've said, the opinion of any one person is irrelevent; it's what the Constitution says that counts. And the Constitution does NOT say "once you joined this new union it would take a combined OK to leave it." Really, don't you think the framers were smart enough to include those words had they meant the Constitution to say that?
"self-destruct clause." Secession didn't destroy the Union. It maintained all or its institutions and won a major war at the same time. I think the Union would still be just fine with 37 states. Nor does it legally matter if secession is logical. If its constitutional, a state may secede even if its illogical or just plain wrong.
"...he was closer to the founders and their meaning than you or I ever will be." I don't mind if you take his view. He's right on nullification. He's wrong on secession.
I believe your capable of seeing more. Stop listening to what others, even I, have to say and read the Constitution again. Give the words the common meaning you'd use in everyday life, or the definitions given in your standard dictionary. Regardless of whether you believe secession good or bad, you'll have to agree that its constitutional.
I'm done with water rights. I don't think their analogous to secession or fireworks or Ohio's recreational user statute or traffic laws because water rights, for whatever reason, seem to involve federal law. None of my examples involve federal law.
My point on the interstate commerce clause is that it was broadly interpreted in the USSCt. of the 20th century. You'd probably get to those cases if you looked up 'the switch in time that saved nine.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice My guess about the motivation for the Capon Springs speech in 1851 comes down to practical politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
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."
Please note that this quote says nothing at all about the "compact" theory of the Constitution. You would find that men as varied as Webster, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln would all hold to the same view about fighting for the rights of the states.
Tim -I'm done with water rights. I don't think their analogous to secession or fireworks or Ohio's recreational user statute or traffic laws because water rights, for whatever reason, seem to involve federal law. None of my examples involve federal law.
Any example that involves the Constitution involves Federal law. If your examples do not involve the US Constitution, they are not pertinent to secession in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
My point on the interstate commerce clause is that it was broadly interpreted in the USSCt. of the 20th century. You'd probably get to those cases if you looked up 'the switch in time that saved nine.'
As I have pointed out to you before, the Supreme Court was deciding water rights cases in the 19th Century, both before and after the Congress split the US water rights into two classes in 1866. Why then would you claim that their authority in the 19th Century was based on Supreme Court interpertations of the 20th Century?
Men, like Daniel Webster, who incidentally did believe in the compact theory, and others, believed that the Constitution was not a document to be triffled with. You do not chose to follow what you want to and ignore the parts you do not like. Whether any of the secessionists believed the Fugitive Slave Law to be unconstitutional is a moot point because it WAS a part of the Constitution. The only traitors are those that refused to abide by the law.
Absolutely wrong. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 is an act passed by Congress in that year and signed by the President. It is NOT a part of the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
We all can argue our theories about interpretation of the Constitution on many points, but the Fugitive Slave Law isn't open for spin. It is very plainly stated and can't be misunderstood.
Again, absolutely wrong. I am not talking about the clause in the Constitution. I am talking about the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, an act passed by Congress in that year and signed by the President. It was an abominable violation of the concept of "states' rights" voted in at the behest of, with the support of, and in order to placate the slave states. It was associated with the Compromise of 1850.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
It's quite an exaggeration to claim the Fugitive Slave Law "set aside ALL state judicial systems. All it did was thwart the laws the states passed exclusively in order to try to squirm out of their obligation to the Constitution.
No. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 did exactly what I said. I understand that we have again come to one of those items you are unwilling to acknowledge because you do not believe it. My statement remains true whether you acknowledge it or not.
Among other things, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 appointed a special class of "commissioners" who could act as Federal magistrates on this matter. They heard all cases and made all judgements, bypassing the state judiciary. Heck, they acted on the level of the Federal District and Circuit Courts legally.
If anyone was accused of being a slave runaway -- no evidence required, simply the unsupported word of the accuser -- a Federal marshal was required to arrest him. If the marshal did not immediately arrest him on the simple accusation (perchance did not believe the accusation), the marshal was fined $1,000. If the person escaped after arrest, the marshal was liable for the claimed value of the slave.
After that, the commissioner made the decision based on paperwork submitted. They were paid $5 for finding a suspect was not a runaway slave -- and $10 for finding that he was. Not too many decided the papaerwork was insufficient.
There was no Habeas Corpus permitted for a state to protect its' citizen. There was no trial by jury allowed. The accused was not allowed to speak in his own defense. The commissioners could compel the accused to be returned to the state of the accuser, using any force necessary. If there is to be a hearing in a court at al it will not be in the state where the accused was apprehended, but after extradition back to the state where he alledgedly fled. The entire concept of "states' rights" was devastated in this law. Under it, the states are not sovereign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose
Isn't it a bit unreasonable to blame the secessionists for the issues the Northern states were unhappy with? Secessionists were not responsible for the laws passed by Congress. I think you are blaming the wrong people.
Rose, if the secessionists wish to wave the "states' rights" banner in the fashion they did to start the Civil War, they have to be consistent about it. They have to favor "states' rights" all the time, for all states. We have clear evidence that they did not. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 is IMHO one of the two biggest violations of "states' rights" in the entire history of the United States of America.
Yet Southern slaveowners used it to get their own way. They were perfectly willing to trample on "states' rights" when it was to their benefit, and when others would suffer. Claiming "states' rights" as a justification for their acts in 1860-61 (as they did) simply makes them hypocrits on the issue, which is a fairly normal condition in politics. They can't have it both ways.
That is why Rhett, Meminger, and Keitt were all against using anything but slavery as a reason in their Declaration of the Causes of Secession when the tariff and matters like this were brought up. They understood and said they believed this law was unconstitutional.
What more proof do you need than that the seceeded states went about their business as independent nations.
You said this and I gave you a similar example to show how unwarranted your statement was and get back this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Tim - "How does that prove that he actually has a 'right' to act as he did?"
The facts you give are insufficient to determine if he had the power.
You supplied no facts at all, just came to a conclusion that the proof was supplied by the way the states acted. I was simply pointing out that this was not a justified statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
(I use the word 'power' to avoid confusion with a determination of 'right or wrong.')
Why not just use what the secessionists did: "right of secession"? It will avoid confusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
If it were me, I'd first look to the partnership agreement.
OK. That would be the Constitution, the Amendments to it, the body of laws enacted under it, and all the history of judicial decisions associated with it.
The Supreme Court has decided that the states of 1860-61 did not have the right to secede as they did. The majority opinion in White v. Texas was that the Union was "perpetual" and "indissoluble". It rejected the "compact" theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
The PA might not define its duration, meaning a partner may withdraw at will.
The states had joined a "Perpetual Union". Duration is defined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
The PA might not give the power of a partner to withdraw from the partnership to the partnership as a whole, nor forbid the power to the individual partner. On this I'd have to conclude that he had the power to withdraw.
There are obvious methods to use if a state wishes to leave: an appeal to the Supreme Court, legislative action in Congress, conventions of all the states,an amendment to the Constitution. None were tried.
As noted, the Supreme Court ruled the states did not have the right you claim you would conclude they had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
I'd look at the PA to see what happens to the property of the partnership or, if that didn't answer the question, to state partnership laws. If the withdrawing partner started to do business with partnership property, I might seek an injunction or an accounting and damages. No doubt I'd have to concede that the withdrawing partner is due his/her proportionate share of partnership property. Shooting at the other partners is another issue. If I were one of the other partners, I'd first go to the prosecutor, then to my lawyer to bring a civil claim.
The former partner has begun shooting at you. There is no outside prosecutor to appeal to, no outsdide court to go to with your lawyer: you must resolve this yourself. That is the situation the US was in at the hands of secessionists in 1861
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
I must note that the withdrawing partner clearly had the power to do what he did; proven by the fact that he did it. Whether exercising that power was legal is another question.
From this we must conclude you are playing charades with the word "power". Your usage here is only "might-makes-right", IOW "the natural right of revolution". It has nothing to do with the legitimate "powers" the Constitution is dealing with in the Tenth Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Tim - "But the actions of the seceding states do nothing to prove they had such a right." So what. There's nothing in the Constitution which requires that the states 'prove' anything before seceeding.
Then they are not using the "right of secession" they so clearly described and claimed as a legal right. You are saying they were insurrectionists and rebels. Jefferson Davis vehemently denied they were in rebellion. Abraham Lincoln insisted they were insurrectionists. Are you really sure you want to say this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"The call for troops is completely legal under the Militia Acts."
The Constitution does not give the fed the authority to forcibly repatriate seceeded states. Therefore, anything in the Militia Acts to the contrary is unconstitutional.
The President is required to enforce the laws. The Militia Act of 1792, as amended, is the primary tool they gave him to do it with. Everything done under it is entirely legal here, and he is specifically enabaled to use the Militia to put down insurrection. You obviously hold with insurrection being the case, as shown above.
However, if the seceding states are in fact foreign nations, then they are committing acts of war against the United States and it is again the President's responsibility to act immediately, the Congress not being in session at the time. Again, the Militia Act is the only enabling legislation Lincoln had to use, so use it he did. The only thing Lincoln would be in error about would be calling them "insurrectionists" instead of "foreign enemies".
All of this is completely legal. As a result, Lincoln called for troops and he also called for an emergency session of Congress at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Tim - "The laws of the United States were certainly being opposed and obstructed, as the authorizing act says."
Wrong. The laws of the US have no application to seceeded states. Those laws could, of course, be enforced in those states remaining in the Union.
Certainly these states had violated Federal law in at least six of the seven cases before they seceded. There is no doubt of it and it is easily documentable. Even if you allow your secession argument, this remains true.
If they have somehow become "foreign enemies", then all the property of the United States government within their territory might have immediately gained the status of US legations and enclaves. US law would still hold there. In seizing and attacking them, the Confederacy immediately puts itself in the wrong.
Again, whether or not the states were in rebellion or insurrection, the statement remains true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
Tim -- "If they are insurrectionists -- as Lincoln maintained...."
What any good ostritch would say.
Nope. Merely someone describing the real-life situation to you.
[quote=russ_aukerman]Tim -- "...the United States was under assault by a foreign power and Lincoln would be need troops to defend the nation."
Isn't a declaration of war supposed to precede an invasion of foreign soil? You can't have it both ways. At least not without using the bigger gun; then you can have it any way you want, right or wrong, legal or illegal.[/quotes]
Your logic here, if there is some, eludes me. The Confederacy opened fire on US troops. They have already reduced and taken a US Fort (thereby "invading" the US if they are foreigners now). The only question is whether of not they are insurrectionists as Lincoln claimed or foreigners doing the assaulting. My point was that in either case, Lincoln is required to defend the nation.
His primary tools for doing that are the US Army, the US Navy, and the Militia. The Army and Navy are too weak and scattered to accomplish the task. His sole immediate available tool for raising forces is the Militia. He used it in a completely legal fashion.
Lincoln's belief was that he was not invading "foreign soil". He acted as the law required him to do, calling the Congress back into emergancy session months earlier than they would have otherwise met. When Congress did meet, they approved all his actions and voted additional measures.
But in any case, American history will show many cases of "undeclared war". The first I am aware of with a major power after the American Revolution is with France, well before the War of 1812 with England. There have been a *lot* of deployments of troops to foreign countries without the benefit of an Act of War over the years. But since you bring up the issue, did the Confederacy pass an Act of War before assaulting Fort Sumter? Did they deliver it to the United States before opening fire upon her citizens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_aukerman
"Why not restrict yourself as they did?"
I can't artificially restrict the definition of a word anymore than you can. My point remains that secession is not just a legal concept. It has many applications outside of law or politics.
Russ, the use of many words is situational. The Confederacy insisted upon a particular usage of the word "secession" and the United States is not a fraternal organization or a club. They specifically said they had a "right of secession" that applied to and was guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States. They said it was a legal and constitutional right. The only body with jurisdiction on that issue has come down saying they did not.
My guess is that you insist upon using your own definition instead of theirs because you understand they were found not to have this "right of secession" and you do not wish to acknowledge such a thing.
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.
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?
I don't have enough knowledge of the abuses you allege in order to form an opinion. Can you direct me to the source of your claims?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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?
I don't know the source of that quote but he said similar to Col. John Baldwin, according to his sworn testimony.
"What about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?"--Lincoln's response to Baldwin's plea to remove the troops from Forts Sumter and Pickens for the sake of peace.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
