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.
"Actually, who was the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution was a subject of debate from the beginning of the Republic." Allow me to respectfully disagree. The Constitution makes the USSCt the final arbiter of federal law; i.e. that law delegated by the states to the fed and enumerated in the Constitution. State SCts were, and remain, the final arbiter of state law.
Therefore, the real question is whether secession is a matter of federal, or state, law. I submit that its a question of state law. The power to regulate state secession is not a power enumerated to the fed in the Constitution. Accordingly, by the 10th Amend., its a question for the states to decide. The fed had no enumerated constitutional power to interfere with a state's exercise of state law. Therefore, all fed actions to forcibly repatriate the seceeded states were unconstitutional.
"And the sovereign,(the people of each State, deciding for itself) denied jurisdiction to the judicial arm of the agent that the sovereign created." No state denied the fed judiciary anything. The question of state secession had not been decided when any of the states seceeded. Certainly the USSSCt is the final arbiter of fed law, and that includes deciding whether a particular power has been delegated to the fed. That is the basis for federal question jurisdiction analysis in the fed cts. In the end, though, the power must be enumerated to the fed in the Constitution for it to be a federal question. The power of secession was not enumerated as a fed power.
Hey, Russ, so glad to see you back. I've been wondering at least weekly for quite a while where you've been. Good to see you've not faded into the scenery.
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
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?
Tim, have you noticed how the question has evolved? You started out saying that "slavery was at the bottom of everything they were worried about." Now you are trying to determine whether the claims of unfair taxation were true or not. Those are two entirely separate questions. Implicit in your more recent question is the assumption that they (at least some of them) were in fact worried about unfair taxation.
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
Tim, have you noticed how the question has evolved? You started out saying that "slavery was at the bottom of everything they were worried about." Now you are trying to determine whether the claims of unfair taxation were true or not. Those are two entirely separate questions. Implicit in your more recent question is the assumption that they (at least some of them) were in fact worried about unfair taxation.
John,
I seem to remember that you started this discussion in response to one sentence I had posted in the Southern honor thread.
Personally I do not you should worry about things that are not true. If you are going to take an action, any responsible person has the obligation to be sure that what he claims is reasonable and true.
In truth, I find that virtually everything that is not involved with slavery is unsupportable. One of the reasons I say that is because people like you never support it in definite and concrete terms. Neither did secessionists, as far as I can see, because they are completely one-sided in all their reasoning.
Much of what you cite is known, just as it is known that it is all vague or unsupported or theoretical about future events that *might* have happened. The secessionists claimed they were acting legally and constitutionally -- yet they failed completely to act by the standards of people acting that way. As I have told you many times, if they want to say they are in revolt, I agree -- but the entire claim for their case of secession is not supported by anything except their compalint about slavery. When SC actually wrote a declaration of *WHY* they seceded, they didn't include anything but slavery. When they produced an "address" to other Southern states thatis little different than any stump-speech to a crowd of loyalists, they used the typical methods of all such efforts.
And the sovereign,(the people of each State, deciding for itself) denied jurisdiction to the judicial arm of the agent that the sovereign created.
Forgive my ignorance. What is it you are quoting here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
You haven't read Elliott's Debates, have you?
I've looked at parts of it over the years. I just did a quick search on it, but found no examples of unilateral secessions of the form the Confederacy asserted as a right and attempted in 1860-61. What specific examples of such actions do you find there? Anything in Britain, France, etc.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
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.
Above you are stating something as a fact that is not so. No State in the US is regarded as having a "right" to do as you say today. You continue to avoid the issue. Lee understood it. Lincoln understood it. The secessionists understood it, the Unionists understood it. You seem to think there is only one side to it, where they understood there were two sides.
In simple form, it is the question of whether the correct English usage should be "the United States are" or "the United States is". It was and is the shortest description of the problem.
If the nation is the United States, then the states have no right to secede. If the states are separate nations composed in a union of convenience, then they may have the right to secede. It was perfectly legitimate to argue either side of that case prior to the Civil War; it is hard to imagine the argument today in any rational form. The Civil War settled that de facto, and was supported by some later de jure decisions.
But, even if we are looking at the second case in 1860, we still have a matter of a dispute between states. All the states had agreed to put the jurisdiction for such matters into the hands of the Supreme Court. No one else has it: no state, not the Federal executive, not the Congress.
"The secessionists claimed they were acting legally and constitutionally -- yet they failed completely to act by the standards of people acting that way. As I have told you many times, if they want to say they are in revolt, I agree -- but the entire claim for their case of secession is not supported by anything except their compalint about slavery." The only standands for acting legally and constitutionally are contained in the Constitution. The Constitution does not give the fed the power to regulate state secession, and does not prohibit the states from seceeding. Accordingly, it is a question for each state to decide for itself. Certainly, slavery was the worst poster child for the exercise of the right. But that does not diminish the right.
"When SC actually wrote a declaration of *WHY* they seceded, they didn't include anything but slavery." That's probably because slavery was the only reason necessary and sufficient to cause secession. Other problems did exist, such as tariffs and the like, but absent slavery, the other problems would have eventually been solved in the normal political process? More importantly, no state had to give a reason to secede. They had the right by the Constitution, and the Constitution does not limit or condition the right. Any state could secede for any reason or no reason at all.
I have enjoyed this exchange, which on the most part has included more "light than noise," as Lincoln used to say.
I can't help but think some of the emphasis on the constitutionality or legality of secession is in part because the actual issue, slavery, was indefensible to most of the civilized world then, and all of it, since.
This doesn't mean that the legal or constitutional issues don't have meaning or substance, a "timeless" quality that extends beyond the secession crisis of 1860. Especially now, which such a powerful and intrusive federal government.
However, the actors of 1860 were not Constitutional or legal scholars. The actual people of 1860 used or discarded the Constitution or State's Rights as it suited their interest.
State's Rights could be discarded when it came to the Fugitive Slave Law, but sacred elsewhere. It was terrible that violent men under John Brown raided Virginia to free slaves, but acceptable when men like William Walker raided nations to establish slavery.
The consent of the governed and the will of the people is sacred, except when the will of the people of Kansas territory is to create a free state, then it can be fought with fraud and violence.
To fight the South to preserve the Union is tyranny, but for the South to suppress its own Unionist discontents is acceptable.
As in most politics, unfortunately, it is whose ox is being gored, not some eternal principle that is the motivating force. There is also honor, and love of country, which motivated men as unlike as U.S. Grant and Robert E. Lee and many others, and I don't want to ignore that. Plenty of northerners were in the war for what they could get, men like Butler, but you can think of many more, I'm sure. But I want to see things as clearly as we can.
Tim -
"The secessionists claimed they were acting legally and constitutionally -- yet they failed completely to act by the standards of people acting that way. As I have told you many times, if they want to say they are in revolt, I agree -- but the entire claim for their case of secession is not supported by anything except their compalint about slavery." The only standands for acting legally and constitutionally are contained in the Constitution. The Constitution does not give the fed the power to regulate state secession, and does not prohibit the states from seceeding. Accordingly, it is a question for each state to decide for itself. Certainly, slavery was the worst poster child for the exercise of the right. But that does not diminish the right.
"When SC actually wrote a declaration of *WHY* they seceded, they didn't include anything but slavery." That's probably because slavery was the only reason necessary and sufficient to cause secession. Other problems did exist, such as tariffs and the like, but absent slavery, the other problems would have eventually been solved in the normal political process? More importantly, no state had to give a reason to secede. They had the right by the Constitution, and the Constitution does not limit or condition the right. Any state could secede for any reason or no reason at all.
Perhaps the Constitution is silent on the "right of secession" because it does not exist.
The "right of secession" the Confederacy claimed does not seem to have existed at any time before 1860; I can find no examples comparable to it. When Northerners talked about doing it in 1808, Virginians said it was treason. It was purely a theoretical legal argument, something that might or might not exist.
Now there are two ways to establish if such a "right" did exist or not. One is to act within the system (the Supreme Court or Constitutional amendment): peaceful, legal, non-violent and constitutional. The other is to act as the South did, which is not the "right of secession" at all but the "natural right of revolution". Simply declare you want out and do whatever it takes to get your independence recognized. That can work, but it is not a legal or constitutional method, and it is usually violent.
My problem with secessionists is that they are two-faced about it. They are in fact carrying out a revolutionary insurrection against their country, IMHO, but they will not admit it. They insisted they were acting legally and constitutionally instead -- even as they seized property, used the threat of force and force itself, finally assaulting and attempting to kill Federals -- and said it was all the other guy's fault. Balderdash.
Their actions are perfectly normal for someone trying to start a revolution -- and completely wrong for anyone trying to act legally.
Now there are two ways to establish if such a "right" did exist or not. One is to act within the system (the Supreme Court or Constitutional amendment): peaceful, legal, non-violent and constitutional. The other is to act as the South did, which is not the "right of secession" at all but the "natural right of revolution". Simply declare you want out and do whatever it takes to get your independence recognized. That can work, but it is not a legal or constitutional method, and it is usually violent.
My problem with secessionists is that they are two-faced about it. They are in fact carrying out a revolutionary insurrection against their country, IMHO, but they will not admit it. They insisted they were acting legally and constitutionally instead -- even as they seized property, used the threat of force and force itself, finally assaulting and attempting to kill Federals -- and said it was all the other guy's fault. Balderdash.
Their actions are perfectly normal for someone trying to start a revolution -- and completely wrong for anyone trying to act legally.
So what they did was "normal" as long as they declared they were acting in a revolutionary manner? How exactly does a people "declare a revolution?"
You dodged this question earlier. How does a State (or minority of States) in a federal system declare that they were exercising the natural right of revolution?
In a federal system, must they overthrow their own State government, if they have no problem with their State government? That hardly seems wise. Must they overthrow the whole federal system, the majority of the citizens of which are happy with how that system is working? That seems neither likely to be successful, nor fair to the majority who would lose the government they are happy with.
Answer these questions directly please.
__________________ "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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
