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.
John, you begin by NOT claiming you are acted legally or constitutionally.
So if South Carolina had seceded, and explicitly declared that they (SC) were acting illegally, the Federal Government had to let them go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
The secessionists practiced double-speak with a vengenance, telling everyone that it was the other side that was acting illegally and presenting themselves as the good, noble, true defenders of the American Constitution. It was all bunk. Just the normal sort of thing many politicians do, wrapping themselves in the flag as they say, to make themselves and the cause they espouse look good by association rather than on the merits of what they actually say.
You mean like a politician who says that a fishing bounty is not such a big burden, since it gave New England sailors such great seamanship skills?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Much better they had simply said: we find living under this agreement intolerable. We reject it. We are breaking with you and setting up our own nation, we will do as we will, and we defy you to stop us.
Isn't that pretty much what the seceding States did?
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
Technically, South Carolina didn't "secede," she repealed her ratification of the Constitution in 1788. In fact, none of the States that left the Union "seceded."
That helps a bit, John. But it leaves the question: Could a state repeal its ratification?
Sorta like a football player who doesn't like the ref's calls and leaves without the consent of his teammates. No rule against it. Therefore it must be okay.
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
That helps a bit, John. But it leaves the question: Could a state repeal its ratification?
Who was in a position to tell the people no. The debates in Virginia, at least make it very clear that her ratification was contingent on the idea that the delegated powers could be recalled if they were perverted to her injury and oppression. This was not a radical doctrine at the time. Madison himself had said "The people were to fountain of all power."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
Sorta like a football player who doesn't like the ref's calls and leaves without the consent of his teammates. No rule against it. Therefore it must be okay.
A better analogy might be if one team's members were injuring the members of the other team in the pile-ups after tackles and the ref said, "I didn't see it. Play on." Eventually the injured player might have enough and just quit the game.
This trivializes the issue, however. The bigger issue is the nature of the Constitution. The people of the States delegated certain enumerated powers to the Federal government, and advocates of ratification said that the people were specifically declaring that they were not delegating powers other than those enumerated in the Constitution. Every other power was left to the people of the States. For resumption of delegated powers to be inadmissible, it had to be specifically denied to the States, as certain powers were in the Constitution.
__________________ "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
Who was in a position to tell the people no. The debates in Virginia, at least make it very clear that her ratification was contingent on the idea that the delegated powers could be recalled if they were perverted to her injury and oppression. This was not a radical doctrine at the time. Madison himself had said "The people were to fountain of all power."
JT,
I don't think that's correct. It was Madison, I believe, who insisted that conditional ratification was tantamount to rejection. At his urging, Hamilton in New York strongly and successfully resisted conditional ratification, even though the Federalists were outnumbered and rejection was possible and indeed likely at points.
It is certainly true that the People were and are the source of all power. Federalist theory was that the People are sovereign. They delegate governmental powers and have the right to recall or alter those delegations.
But that simply avoids the issue: who are the People who can revoke their consent? Having entered into a nationwide government, the People can revoke their consent, but not on a state-by-state basis. Would, say, New York agree that the People of the five counties comprising New York City by themselves could withdraw their consent to be governed by the State of New York? Of course not, because the decision to alter the state government affects the People of the entire state, not just the People of the particular counties, and therefore the decision to alter that government must be made by the People of the entire state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice John, you begin by NOT claiming you are acted legally or constitutionally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
So if South Carolina had seceded, and explicitly declared that they (SC) were acting illegally, the Federal Government had to let them go?
No. If there was no such "right of secession" and they were acting illegally, why would the Federal government have to let them go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice The secessionists practiced double-speak with a vengenance, telling everyone that it was the other side that was acting illegally and presenting themselves as the good, noble, true defenders of the American Constitution. It was all bunk. Just the normal sort of thing many politicians do, wrapping themselves in the flag as they say, to make themselves and the cause they espouse look good by association rather than on the merits of what they actually say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
You mean like a politician who says that a fishing bounty is not such a big burden, since it gave New England sailors such great seamanship skills?
Come on, John. Northern and Southern congressmen had voted for the Fishing Bounties over a period of many decades. The only way it was ever possible to develop skills as a seaman under sail was to work at sea. It took years. All maritime nations of the day routinely called upon the fishing and merchant sailors for experienced sailors in time of war and had for many centuries.
As Stephens says, it might be that the Fishing Bounty policy had become dated by 1860 as the world moved from the Age of Sail to the Age of Steam. The US Mail steamers and the Naval volunteer policy was probably more appropriate; since the Federal government did get rid of the Fishing Bounties shortly after this and maintained the Naval volunteer program for several more decades, that was probably the case. Fishing Bounties were probably done away with as no longer as relevant when sailing ships disappeared from the US Navy during the Civil War.
For the Navy, it would be a practical matter. For politicians, there'd be some special interests who wouldn't want an entitlement program to go away -- just as there are on every government program that pays cash or benefits for any reason. Just normal politics and bureaucratic inertia involved in getting rid of it. No major constitutional issue visible, and certainly nothing to justify secession with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice Much better they had simply said: we find living under this agreement intolerable. We reject it. We are breaking with you and setting up our own nation, we will do as we will, and we defy you to stop us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Isn't that pretty much what the seceding States did?
No, it is not. But we already have covered this, and you already know this is NOT what the seceding states did, and that they denied that they were in revolt. They insisted they were acting constitutionally and legally and peacefully as they proceeded to avoid using the Constitution or the courts, and instituted the use of force and violence. They claimed it was the rest of the country that was staging a revolution. So why keep circling back to try to imply something else?
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor Who was in a position to tell the people no. The debates in Virginia, at least make it very clear that her ratification was contingent on the idea that the delegated powers could be recalled if they were perverted to her injury and oppression. This was not a radical doctrine at the time. Madison himself had said "The people were to fountain of all power."
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
JT,
I don't think that's correct. It was Madison, I believe, who insisted that conditional ratification was tantamount to rejection. At his urging, Hamilton in New York strongly and successfully resisted conditional ratification, even though the Federalists were outnumbered and rejection was possible and indeed likely at points.
Madison to Hamilton: "My opinion is, that a reservation of a right to withdraw, if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification; that it does not make New York a member of the new Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal -- this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short, any condition whatever must vitiate the ratification . . . The idea of reserving a right to withdraw was started at Richmond, and considered as a conditional ratification, which was itself abandoned as worse than a rejection." (Emphasis added by me.)
"As I said before, perhaps the Constitution is silent on the "right of secession" because it does not exist." First, I wouldn't get too caught up in any distinction between 'right' and 'power.' John has put forth a distinction, and may be correct. I think the word 'power' may be a little better, but for myself, I'm using the two words interchangeably. A simple definition of power or right would be ANYTHING upon which a government could regulate or act upon. Any topic capable of being the subject of an ordinance or statute is a topic capable of being regulated. There is no limit upon which state governments may regulate, subject only to that state's own constitutionand the US Constitution. Regulation of electricity awaited the invention of electricity; regulation of secession awaited the desire to secede. The question comes back to which sovereign - the state or the fed - had the power or right to regulate or act upon secession. As the Constitution does not delegate the power to regulate secession to the fed, nor prohibit it to the states, the power of secession is one upon which the states may lawfully act.
"At least six of the first seven states to secede in particular employed force, the threat of force, and the seizure of property even in advance of the adoption of secession." Do you not think that a seceeding state was entitled to its proportionate share of federal property upon secession? Think of it as a divorce - each party retains that which they brought to the marriage and their proportionate share of assets obtained during the marriage. State seizures of fed property were just the states retaining their proportionate share of assets obtained by the fed while that state was in the Union.
Secession is not a matter of fed law. Therefore, the USSCt had no jurisdiction to rule upon the issue. Personally, I don't think an amendment would pass (not that one was necessary) because there weren't 3/4 of the states who'd have agreed to it.
I'm not sure whether southern people thought their constitutional argument weak or strong. It really doesn't matter; its what the Constitution says that counts, not what any one person thinks it says or ought to say.
I agree that southerners (and northerners for that matter) kept "fanning everything to a fever pitch." It just shows that propaganda is not new.
ET good to hear from you. You raise good points. And I will try and address them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
I don't think that's correct. It was Madison, I believe, who insisted that conditional ratification was tantamount to rejection.
Madison did indeed say this, but in a private letter to Hamilton dated July 20th, 1788. In the public debates, when it mattered (i.e. when it could influence the debates in the Virginia Convention) he said the opposite. On June 24th, 1788 James Madison said, “The observations made by a gentleman lately up, on that subject, correspond precisely with my opinion. That resolution declares that the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. It adds, likewise, that no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the general government, or any of its officers, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for these purposes. There cannot be a more positive and unequivocal declaration of the principle of the adoption – that every thing not granted is reserved. This is obviously and self-evidently the case, without the declaration. Can the general government exercise any power not delegated? If an enumeration be made of our rights, will it not be implied that every thing omitted is given to the general government? Has not the honorable gentleman himself admitted that an imperfect enumeration is dangerous? Does the Constitution say that they shall not alter the law of descents, or do those things which would subvert the whole system of the state laws? If it did, what was not excepted would be granted. Does it follow, from the omission of such restrictions that they can exercise powers not delegated? The reverse of the proposition holds. The delegation alone warrants the exercise of any power.” In the Virginia Convention, when it mattered, Gov. Randolph had said that ratification was safe, because delegated powers could be resumed if perverted to the injury or oppression of the people. On June 21st, 1788, Gov. Edmund Randolph declared: “If I did believe, with the honorable gentleman, that all power not expressly retained was given up by the people, I would detest this government. But I never thought so, nor do I now. If, in the ratification, we put words to this purpose, "and that all authority not given is retained by the people, and may be resumed when perverted to their oppression; and that no right can be cancelled, abridged, or restrained, by the Congress, or any officer of the United States,"--I say, if we do this, I conceive that, as this style of ratification would manifest the principles on which Virginia adopted it, we should be at liberty to consider as a violation of the Constitution every exercise of a power not expressly delegated therein. I see no objection to this. It is demonstrably clear to me that rights not given are retained, and that liberty of religion, and other rights, are secure. I hope this committee will not reject it for faults which can be corrected, when they see the consequent confusion that will follow.” How had these powers been delegated? By the people of each State, deciding for itself, and itself alone. While it is possible that all the people of all the States (or even the majority) might resume their delegated powers. But I don’t see that this was the only way that delegated powers could be resumed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
At his urging, Hamilton in New York strongly and successfully resisted conditional ratification, even though the Federalists were outnumbered and rejection was possible and indeed likely at points.
In New York, the Anti-Federalists had tried the expedient of conditional ratification, by which they meant that the ratification could be automatically revoked unless the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. Hamilton fought, successfully, against this. New York’s ratification in the end, says, “That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security. That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are essential rights which every Government ought to respect and preserve. That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
It is certainly true that the People were and are the source of all power. Federalist theory was that the People are sovereign. They delegate governmental powers and have the right to recall or alter those delegations. But that simply avoids the issue: who are the People who can revoke their consent?
The question indeed seems to revolve around who “the people” were. Since they had delegated powers to the general government by States, it would seem that it was the understanding of the Virginia Convention that this was how they could be resumed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
Having entered into a nationwide government, the People can revoke their consent, but not on a state-by-state basis. Would, say, New York agree that the People of the five counties comprising New York City by themselves could withdraw their consent to be governed by the State of New York? Of course not, because the decision to alter the state government affects the People of the entire state, not just the People of the particular counties, and therefore the decision to alter that government must be made by the People of the entire state.
I would differ in that view. The counties of New York had not created the State of New York, quite the contrary. The State of New York created the counties. New York was one of the unitary political societies that created the Union. By the way, I haven’t forgotten about the Fairman XIV Amendment stuff. I owe you’re a detailed reply. I was actually reading Fairman this morning. Respectfully, JT
__________________ "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
[quote=JohnTaylor]Who was in a position to tell the people no. The debates in Virginia, at least make it very clear that her ratification was contingent on the idea that the delegated powers could be recalled if they were perverted to her injury and oppression. This was not a radical doctrine at the time. Madison himself had said "The people were to fountain of all power."
So? Madison, speaking on conditional ratification rejected it, saying: "The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever." (Emphasis added.) If adoptation of the Constitution is forever, how do you repeal your ratification?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
A better analogy might be if one team's members were injuring the members of the other team in the pile-ups after tackles and the ref said, "I didn't see it. Play on." Eventually the injured player might have enough and just quit the game.
You mean, like renounce your citizenship and move to Cuba or Brasil? I have no problem at all with any dissatisfied Southerner doing such a thing. But if you quit the team, you don't get to keep the uniform, the shoulder pads, the helmet, the locker room or the football field. Even if you own a piece of the team you don't get to pick and choose what you will take with you. Instead you sit down with your partners and negotiate an exit agreement; you don't change the locks and back up a truck to take what you can grab.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
This trivializes the issue, however. The bigger issue is the nature of the Constitution. The people of the States delegated certain enumerated powers to the Federal government, and advocates of ratification said that the people were specifically declaring that they were not delegating powers other than those enumerated in the Constitution. Every other power was left to the people of the States. For resumption of delegated powers to be inadmissible, it had to be specifically denied to the States, as certain powers were in the Constitution.
Suppose no such power as the "right of secession" ever existed and the states never had it. Then what?
This is the crux of the argument, and I never see a secessionist supporter address it. They insist that the "right" did exist as if it were already established and are unwilling to concede that it was very debatable whether it did exist or not.
Originally Posted by elektratig I don't think that's correct. It was Madison, I believe, who insisted that conditional ratification was tantamount to rejection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Madison did indeed say this, but in a private letter to Hamilton dated July 20th, 1788. In the public debates, when it mattered (i.e. when it could influence the debates in the Virginia Convention) he said the opposite. On June 24th, 1788 James Madison said, “The observations made by a gentleman lately up, on that subject, correspond precisely with my opinion. That resolution declares that the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. It adds, likewise, that no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the general government, or any of its officers, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for these purposes. There cannot be a more positive and unequivocal declaration of the principle of the adoption – that every thing not granted is reserved. This is obviously and self-evidently the case, without the declaration. Can the general government exercise any power not delegated? If an enumeration be made of our rights, will it not be implied that every thing omitted is given to the general government? Has not the honorable gentleman himself admitted that an imperfect enumeration is dangerous? Does the Constitution say that they shall not alter the law of descents, or do those things which would subvert the whole system of the state laws? If it did, what was not excepted would be granted. Does it follow, from the omission of such restrictions that they can exercise powers not delegated? The reverse of the proposition holds. The delegation alone warrants the exercise of any power.” In the Virginia Convention, when it mattered, Gov. Randolph had said that ratification was safe, because delegated powers could be resumed if perverted to the injury or oppression of the people. On June 21st, 1788, Gov. Edmund Randolph declared: “If I did believe, with the honorable gentleman, that all power not expressly retained was given up by the people, I would detest this government. But I never thought so, nor do I now. If, in the ratification, we put words to this purpose, "and that all authority not given is retained by the people, and may be resumed when perverted to their oppression; and that no right can be cancelled, abridged, or restrained, by the Congress, or any officer of the United States,"--I say, if we do this, I conceive that, as this style of ratification would manifest the principles on which Virginia adopted it, we should be at liberty to consider as a violation of the Constitution every exercise of a power not expressly delegated therein. I see no objection to this. It is demonstrably clear to me that rights not given are retained, and that liberty of religion, and other rights, are secure. I hope this committee will not reject it for faults which can be corrected, when they see the consequent confusion that will follow.”
Having read the quote you supplied in response to elektratig, I see no place at all where Madison says anything that supports "conditional ratification". Would you please point it out more clearly for me?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
