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 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?
Rose: I thought I'd chime in here to save Trice the trouble of exclaiming: "For Pete's sakes, Rose!"
In several places, recently, in several posts in several threads (which you surely must have read), there are lists of forts, armories and other Federal properties seized by date and by state.
That's tantamount to asking for a source for, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."
With apologies for my inconsiderate impatience.
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
"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.
Do you imply that Fort Sumter or Fort Pickens had something to do with the collection of duties?
In several places, recently, in several posts in several threads (which you surely must have read), there are lists of forts, armories and other Federal properties seized by date and by state.
Tim: ....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.
Tim: 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.
I'm sorry for trying your patience, Ole, but I don't know how to answer such general charges as in the above. Where he is alluding to the take over of forts, I've answered those charges several times. seizing or "grabbing" "buildings, posts, vessels, seizure of funds", are all vague, unspecific charges. By "posts" is he referring to the Forts that are separately mentioned? If Tim will give me some specifics I'll be glad to answer him to the best of my ability, I'm not familiar with the circumstances surrounding the $600,000 he claims was seized from NO Customs House and haven't had time to go searching for it (the reason I asked for a source for his claims). I've addressed the Ft. Sumter issue more than once in the past.
I went back through Tim's messages to me and didn't find the states and dates you mention. Perhaps they are in other messages or on other threads, but I may not have read them. There are times that I don't have enough time to keep up with all messages that aren't directed to me.
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
Do you imply that Fort Sumter or Fort Pickens had something to do with the collection of duties?
Cedarstripper
Not at all. It seems that is what came to Lincoln's mind when it was suggested to him that he abandon the Forts.
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 My guess about the motivation for the Capon Springs speech in 1851 comes down to practical politics.
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.
Regards,
Tim
Earlier in the speech Webster says:
"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)
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
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.
Of course not, it merely reinforced the part of the Constitution that already dealt with fugitive slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
If the Northern states were unhappy with Article IV, Sec. II of the Constitution they should have been working to have it amended instead of passing state laws to "get around it". Some of them claimed to listen to a higher law than the Constitution rather than work for change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
We seem to have differing opinions, again. What a suprise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
None of that would have been necessary if the Northern states would have simply honored their Constitutional duties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
I'm sure that cut down on "escapes".
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
So you think the commissioners were often crooked?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
There were so few blacks living in the Northern states that I can't imagine "protecting citizens" was much of a problem. For instance Ohio's population contained only 1.28% blacks, Illinois had 0.64% while Indiana only had 1.14% blacks. The good citizens of these states would probably have raised a ruckus if a Southern man had tried to take one of their own...or would they? They did seem to go to extra lengths to keep blacks out of their states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
Now you are saying the Southerners should have taken up with the Northerners that insisted on breaking the law and disregarding the Constitution. Those legislators that passed the Fugitive Slave Act apparently didn't agree with you. Admittedly, there could have been a minute number of Northern blacks that slipped through the cracks because of this law. That is true of most laws, but the Northern states simply wouldn't comply with their Constitutional duty without it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
Southern slave owners only wanted to be able to regain their property. It's a shame that the U.S. Congress had to take such measures in order to ensure it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
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.
If these secessionists believed the FSL was unconstitutional, how did that help them with using slavery as a reason for secession? Sorry, I'm puzzled at this statement.
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
While there had been fugitive slave laws of various kinds before, clearly the 1850 law was the strictest to date. IMO, a major factor in bringing on the war. How many enslaved men, women and children managed to escape each year? I have read estimates anywhere from a couple hundred to a thousand. Given four million enslaved people by 1860, a thousand successful escapees(what numbers of unsuccessful escape attempts?), is a tiny, really insignificant percentage. And those hottest for a strict fugitive slave laws, were they from the border states, like Maryland, or from the states with little opportunity to escape, like Mississippi?
The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 was not a practical measure seeking to stem a flood of escapees, but an angry blow at free staters, and abolitionists.
This is of course leaving aside the obvious: if a person showed the courage to attempt escape, the intelligence to outwit his pursuers, then the personal resources to survive in a sometimes hostile society, he is many things, but fit to be a slave?
Thank you for your thoughtful and informative post, Matthew. It does bring up a persistently nagging question. Given that the Underground Railroad and escaping slaves were minor thorns to the slavocracy. What was the big deal?
You might count on your fingers -- go ahead, add the toes -- the number of slaves who successfully escaped from anywhere but border states. If you could get across the Ohio or the Potomac, you stood a slight chance of finding transportation north to Canada. Escaped and escaping slaves were, at best, an annoyance. So it would seem that the Personal Liberty Laws, their constitutionality and their actual effectiveness were straw men -- legally redressable complaints held up to justify secession.
I'm getting the idea that nothing the north could do would satisfy the secessionists. (Lincoln expressed the sentiment aptly in his Cooper Union speech.) The southern secessionist powers would and did sieze any pretext to promote their desire to separate themselves from a union their fathers and grandfathers fought to establish. Their motivation? I can't see much beyond aristocratic pretentions of separation from such silly notions as equality in a classless society. In a word: arrogance.
Thanks for your post.
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
Dear Ole,
I think personal liberty laws, and the toleration of abolitionist activities, including the underground rr were affronts, insults, rather than injuries. Not quite strawmen, as you state, because I think the insults were deeply felt.
By 1860, I think you're right. There was no surrender by the north abject enough to satisfy the real fireeaters. Southern unionists, I think to win in the politics of their states, needed further concessions, which by 1860, the north was not willing to give.
"If your examples do not involve the US Constitution, they are not pertinent to secession in any way." Huh? Remember that the Constitution is SILENT on secession. I look to the Constitution to determine that secession is NOT a matter of federal law. State sovereign powers do NOT involve the Constitution, aside from the fact that the 10th Amend. mentions them. My examples are, like secession, the exercise of state sovereign powers.
"Why then would you claim that their authority in the 19th Century was based on Supreme Court interpertations of the 20th Century?" I don't recall making such a claim. But like I said, I'm done with water rights. I'll happily entertain other examples.
"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." JUST the Constitution and the amendments; not the other stuff.
"The majority opinion in White v. Texas was that the Union was 'perpetual' and 'indissoluble'. It rejected the 'compact" theory.' I don't recall any rejection of the compact theory; do you have a page cite for that proposition? At any rate, as I've told you, that case is wrong. As proof, I challenge you to find the words 'perpetual' or 'indissoluble' anywhere in the Constitution.
I've already addressed your alternative possible methods to achieve secession. None of them are required or authorized by the Constitution.
If the USSCt ruled that the sun rose in the west, that wouldn't make it so. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and in that regard eventually trumps inconsistent court decisions. All we need is a test case and nine justices capable of following their own rules.
"...you must resolve this yourself." Then the first thing I do is get out of the way of the bullets. If my partnership agreement lets a partner withdraw, and does not authorize the use of force to bring him back to the partnership, then I let him go. I live with the deals I make.
"From this we must conclude you are playing charades with the word 'power'." Huh? I don't know what you're talking about. When I speak of gov't powers I mean the right to legislate or regulate on any given subject. Applied here, it means that because the Constitution does not enumerate to the fed the power to legislate or regulate secession, it is a power that belongs to the states under the 10th Amend. In your example of a partnership, the power of a partner to withdraw, and the consequenses, are governed by the PA or state partnership law. The rule of law is the antithesis of 'might makes right.'
"You are saying they were insurrectionists and rebels." Not reading what I post, and trying to put words in my mouth, don't further the discussion.
"The President is required to enforce the laws." In Brazil? Hungary? South Africa? India? China? Puh-leeze.
The Militia Acts, being legislation of Congress, cannot go beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution. To the extent that such acts authorized the forcible repatriation of the seceeded states (a point which I doubt), they are unconstitutional.
"Again, the Militia Act is the only enabling legislation Lincoln had to use, so use it he did." Wrong. If Lincoln were to be enabled to forcibly repatriate the seceeded states, the authority could only come from the Constitution. The Constitution gives the fed, its President or Congress, no such authority. Thus, when states seceeded, the only thing Lincoln could do consistent with his oath of office was to sit down, shut up and let the states secede.
The invasion of foreign soil to which I was referring was the US's invasion of Va. resulting in First Manassas. But then I think you knew that, and have rather chosen to obfuscate the issue. I'm not inclined to play along.
"Lincoln's belief was that he was not invading 'foreign soil'." I really don't care what your pet ostritch has to say if its contrary to reality.
"He acted as the law required him to do...." He acted outside of the authority granted him by the Constitution, and thereby violated his oath of office. He should have been impeached.
"But in any case, American history will show many cases of 'undeclared war'." I guess you're back to that 'two wrongs makes a right' theory.
I took the trouble to quote the dictionary definition of the word 'secession,' and you say "My guess is that you insist upon using your own definition...." I don't get it.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
