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 have a question for you here: do you believe that the points this man makes in this document are valid ones that justify the act of secession, whether it is constitutional or not?
Tim, the Address was not a declaration of "this man" as you say, but was adopted by the people of South Carolina, in convention assembled. Rhett was one of the seven who drafted the Address. The Address was ratified by the Convention as a whole.
But I assert that you are mischaracterizing Rhett. Your 1881 source gets him garbled. Rhett never said that he considered the FSL to be unconstitutional, just that some others did. Stating that the FSL was unconstitutional would be very un-Rhett. I will look into the proceedings of the South Carolina Convention and let you know.
Use precise words precisely.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Originally posted by Tim: "do you believe that the points this man makes in this document are valid ones that justify the act of secession, whether it is constitutional or not?"
To which I responded, "If the Union were to develop a system of taxation that unfairly targeted the people of one State (or section), and the people of that State (or section) found such to be oppressive and intolerable, then yes, that, in my mind would be a valid reason for secession, because the alternative would be that people must accept oppression that they found intolerable. Hardly a just basis for a system of government. And very unAmerican."
So which is it Tim? Do you want to know if I thought SC's complaint would justify secession, or do you want to know whether South Carolina thought it justified secession? They thought it justified independence.
If someone could show me that my State was being exploited by unequal taxation, and my State had declared that it found the exploitation to be unconstitutional (because it promotes not the general welfare, but particular sectional welfare), and that they would secede if it didn't cease, then yes, I'd feel they were justified in seceding.
Gee, Tim, this is not complicated. Your question might have been poorly worded, but I hope this answers it nevertheless.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Last edited by JohnTaylor; 05-24-2006 at 02:48 PM.
I said, "the Federal bench was a party to the dispute. It was a branch of the government whose authority was disputed."
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Balderdash. By that reasoning, all of the states are disqualified from seceding because they are also parties to the dispute. The Constitution specifically gives jurisdiction in these matters to the Supreme Court. It was a Southerner who rammed that down the country's throat in the old days.
Actually, who was the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution was a subject of debate from the beginning of the Republic. I, for one, see that the Commonwealth of Kentucky in 1799 made a compelling case for the idea that, since the people of the States were the delegators of every Federal power, in a dispute between the delegators and the agent that they created over whether a particular power was in fact delegated, that the original owners of the power in question had at least as good a right as the agent to determine the answer. The Federal judiciary was a component part of the agent.
But this dispute was whether the States in question were in the Union and whether the Constitution of the United States had any authority over them after they had withdrawn. Article VII of the Constitution clearly leaves that up to the Conventions of each State to decide.
And there was the issue of self-government and the rule of the people.
The Founders in Philadelphia confronted the unanimity requirement for amending the AoC ("Article XIII: "the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."). Madison said this:
“The people were in fact, the fountain of all power, and by resorting to them, all difficulties were got over. They could alter constitutions as they pleased. It was a principle in the Bills of rights, that first principles might be resorted to.” James Madison, Federal Convention, August 31st, 1787
(Resorting to "first principles" gave the States the power to ignore the Articles of Confederation provision requiring unanimity for any amendment to take effect. The fountain of all power outweighed this explicit provision of the AoC. And the Constitution went into effect, even though Rhode Island didn't even send a delegate, and North Carolina refused to ratify.)
“We, the people, possessing all power, form a government, such as we think will secure happiness: and suppose, in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end; where is the cause of alarm on that quarter? In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss. No, but, say gentlemen, we have put the introduction of that method in the hands of our servants, who will interrupt it from motives of self-interest. What then? We will resist, did my friend say? conveying an idea of force. Who shall dare to resist the people? No, we will assemble in Convention; wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse; and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument. Edmund Pendleton, Virginia Convention, June 5th 1788. (Since the people of the States had delegated powers to the Federal government in State Conventions, each State deciding for itself only, how else could they resume them?)
At the very least, Federal coercion of membership in the Union was antidemocratic.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Originally posted by Tim: "do you believe that the points this man makes in this document are valid ones that justify the act of secession, whether it is constitutional or not?"
To which I responded, "If the Union were to develop a system of taxation that unfairly targeted the people of one State (or section), and the people of that State (or section) found such to be oppressive and intolerable, then yes, that, in my mind would be a valid reason for secession, because the alternative would be that people must accept oppression that they found intolerable. Hardly a just basis for a system of government. And very unAmerican."
So which is it Tim? Do you want to know if I thought SC's complaint would justify secession, or do you want to know whether South Carolina thought it justified secession? They thought it justified independence.
If someone could show me that my State was being exploited by unequal taxation, and my State had declared that it found the exploitation to be unconstitutional (because it promotes not the general welfare, but particular sectional welfare), and that they would secede if it didn't cease, then yes, I'd feel they were justified in seceding.
Gee, Tim, this is not complicated. Your question might have been poorly worded, but I hope this answers it nevertheless.
I did not ask you if "They" thought it was justified. I asked you if *you* thought their complaint was justified. You have once again avoided saying yes or no by going off into theoretical "if" conditions.
Do you actually believe they were being subjected to or exploited by unequal taxes in December of 1860? Please give a definite answer. If not, say "No, I do not believe their complaint was valid.". If you do, say "Yes, I do believe their complaint was valid." Or, if neither applies, simply say "I do not know if their complaint was valid or invalid".
I said, "the Federal bench was a party to the dispute. It was a branch of the government whose authority was disputed." Actually, who was the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution was a subject of debate from the beginning of the Republic. I, for one, see that the Commonwealth of Kentucky in 1799 made a compelling case for the idea that, since the people of the States were the delegators of every Federal power, in a dispute between the delegators and the agent that they created over whether a particular power was in fact delegated, that the original owners of the power in question had at least as good a right as the agent to determine the answer. The Federal judiciary was a component part of the agent.
But this dispute was whether the States in question were in the Union and whether the Constitution of the United States had any authority over them after they had withdrawn. ...
Nope. The question of secession is whether or not the state can leave unilaterally. If they have such a right, the law of the US does not apply to them after they leave. If they can't leave, the law does apply.
So at what point did all the states hold conventions to discuss the matter of the "right of secession"? I can't recall any other time in history that such a "right" was found to exist before the Confederacy attempted it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
At the very least, Federal coercion of membership in the Union was antidemocratic.
Well, no. Democracy is essentially about majority rule, and it is clear that the majority was opposed to secession as the South attempted it.
Nope. The question of secession is whether or not the state can leave unilaterally. If they have such a right, the law of the US does not apply to them after they leave. If they can't leave, the law does apply.
And the sovereign,(the people of each State, deciding for itself) denied jurisdiction to the judicial arm of the agent that the sovereign created.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
So at what point did all the states hold conventions to discuss the matter of the "right of secession"? I can't recall any other time in history that such a "right" was found to exist before the Confederacy attempted it.
You haven't read Elliott's Debates, have you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Well, no. Democracy is essentially about majority rule, and it is clear that the majority was opposed to secession as the South attempted it.
Which would be sufficient if the United States were a consolidated democracy. In a federal system, the majority concerned is the people of each State (i.e. each State deciding for itself whether to remain in the Union or not). The majority of the people of South Carolina was over-ruled when the agent (the Federal government) overthrew the State government by force of arms and forced the State back into the Union against the expressed will of the people of that State. Not very democratic, as I said. Respectfully, John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Do you actually believe they were being subjected to or exploited by unequal taxes in December of 1860?
I would say, I don't know. I can neither confirm nor deny the assertion. Data are simply not available.
Figures floated before the war commonly asserted that the South paid 2/3, 3/4, or even 4/5 of the tariff revenues. I remain unconvinced that the South paid even the majority of tariff revenues. The majority of consumers would seem to have lived in the North. Given the choice, I would not have voted for secession based on that alleged exploitation.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
I would say, I don't know. I can neither confirm nor deny the assertion. Data are simply not available.
Figures floated before the war commonly asserted that the South paid 2/3, 3/4, or even 4/5 of the tariff revenues. I remain unconvinced that the South paid even the majority of tariff revenues. The majority of consumers would seem to have lived in the North. Given the choice, I would not have voted for secession based on that alleged exploitation.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
Effect of secession on the collection of revenue from the tariff-
*A total for the fiscal year was given...but there were no reports for the 2nd and 3rd quarters.
**Morrill tariff in effect
~~~~
Fiscal Year July 1860-June 1861
Amount collected in first four months........................$19,836,379.94
Amount collected in last eight months........................19,717,439.87
I would say, I don't know. I can neither confirm nor deny the assertion. Data are simply not available.
Figures floated before the war commonly asserted that the South paid 2/3, 3/4, or even 4/5 of the tariff revenues. I remain unconvinced that the South paid even the majority of tariff revenues. The majority of consumers would seem to have lived in the North. Given the choice, I would not have voted for secession based on that alleged exploitation.
Nice to see you actually take a position.
Since you don't know if their claim was valid or not, I assume you also acknowledge that their reasoning for secession might be right or wrong.
"If" they were wrong, what do you think should be said about them? Do you think they had a duty to themselves (if no one else) to act only on what they knew to be true, to avoid acting in error?
*A total for the fiscal year was given...but there were no reports for the 2nd and 3rd quarters.
**Morrill tariff in effect
~~~~
Fiscal Year July 1860-June 1861
Amount collected in first four months........................$19,836,379.94
Amount collected in last eight months........................19,717,439.87
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Perhaps this is your problem 
Linear Mode
