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.
My feeble point in all this, if I were glib enough for succintness, would be to attempt to state that a very minute minority of southerners had any contact with politics before or during the war and were not advised or including in the discussions of those who were. The Confederacy was mostly a gleam in Mr. Davis' eye, not a viable government or organization. Certainly the people affected weren't represented. Had that been the case, the house of 'legislators' would have been cleaned and the war would not have continued. Those with the money called the shots, but didn't suffer the lead poisoning.
My feeble point in all this, if I were glib enough for succintness, would be to attempt to state that a very minute minority of southerners had any contact with politics before or during the war and were not advised or including in the discussions of those who were. The Confederacy was mostly a gleam in Mr. Davis' eye, not a viable government or organization. Certainly the people affected weren't represented. Had that been the case, the house of 'legislators' would have been cleaned and the war would not have continued. Those with the money called the shots, but didn't suffer the lead poisoning.
My impression is that Jeff got swept up in the charge. He had no role in the separation, but as long as the separatists wanted him to lead their new government, he was amenable -- trying, as it were, to make some cohesive unit of the disparate elements. As it happened, he failed. I don't think Lincoln hisself could have done better. Jeff was a pawn. He did better than one could humanly expect under the circumstances. You've said, in essence, that there were forces that would not be denied. Someone had to direct the effects of those forces. Jeff did a creditable job, but those forces demanded something beyond reason and organization. Not possible.
Want to say that I simply adored your "lead poisoning" allusion, but that sounds a bit sweet. So let's pretend I didn't say it.
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
Many Confederates only read the parts of the constitution that didn't weaken their case.
The States were no longer "sovereign" countries under the U.S. Constitution. They gave up powers normally assumed by sovereign nations. Historians usually ignore that fact.
"The Congress shall have Power...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;..."
"To ...suppress Insurrections"
The Confederate States never had the authority to unilaterally reject any portions of the U.S. Constitution. Any rejection and bombing of Fort Sumter was insurrection. That meant war, because it was insurrection.
After the war, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that secession was absolutely null.
Whitworth, your last statements are absolutely true. There is one catch, however. Once the Confederates had declared that they had seceded, it didn't make any difference if it was legal or not. The catfight was on. At that point, it was open range. To the victor went the opportunity to decide what was legal and what wasn't. The rules with a Confederate "victory" would have very quickly been re-written. Fortunately, that didn't happen.
Larry, it is true that what was legal or illegal didn't matter, as long as the war continued.
My only caveat is, that once the Confederate states no longer had any power in the U.S. Congress, by their "secession", that Congress could pass a Constitutional amendment, to ban slavery, without any economic compensation, to former slaveholders, for the loss of their slaves.
The Southern states, more conservative, had no control over the budget and the vast expenditures the U.S. Congress raised and spent to fight the Civil War.
The Southern states did not want use of federal funds to improve industry. The U.S. government spent millions, through its military railroad construction corps, to rebuild and improve private railroads. Southern constitutional conservatives had no say.
General Robert E. Lee was flabbergasted by February, 1863, when he wrote his son about the power of the U.S. President and the millions of dollar spent against the Confederacy.
Lee, Virginia and the south had no say in what was raised and what was spent. The South had given up its influence in the U.S. Congress and reaped the whirlwind.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
