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.
But I am interested in your opinion here. Forget Lincoln's call for troops, pretend it has not happened yet, and simply concentrate on the news of the Confederate action. What *should* have been the reaction of VA-NC-TN-AR to the attack on Ft. Sumter? Moral outrage that their nation had been attacked, whether by rebels or foreign enemies? A sense of helplessness? Glee that the Confederacy had triumphed? Something else?
The Virginia Convention had resolved that both sides should avoid any action leading to conflict. And several of the Unionist delegates had suggested that there was a difference between forts like Sumter and Pickens, which served only for local defense, and others like Jefferson and Tortugas which protected shipping in the Gulf of Mexico (in which the US had a vested interest, to protect her own shipping in the Gulf, since the Confederacy had no navy to speak of). They wanted to specifically authorize/ask Lincoln to give up the former (which had no legitimate use for the United States once these States had left the Union), and retain the latter while a political compromise was worked out. Lincoln would have none of it. Lincoln’s sending a fleet of ships, filled with military forces and supplies (reported in the New York Times before their departure for points south) ended much of the Unionist sentiment in the Virginia Convention. The call for 75,000 troops to invade the South killed much of the rest of Union sentiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
What has always impressed me about this is the illogic of it. The Confederacy attacks the United States, and the outrage is against Lincoln for reacting to the assault. If Lincoln had done nothing, what would Virginia and Tennessee and Arkansas and North Carolina have done? Applauded him for allowing the country to be abused? Seceded anyway because the US was obviously too weak-kneed to protect them?
Protect them from what? The Federal government would seem to be the greatest menace at this point. The Confederacy had only extended an invitation to join. The Confederacy was no threat at all, as long as the US government recognized her independence. 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
The Virginia Convention had resolved that both sides should avoid any action leading to conflict. And several of the Unionist delegates had suggested that there was a difference between forts like Sumter and Pickens, which served only for local defense, and others like Jefferson and Tortugas which protected shipping in the Gulf of Mexico (in which the US had a vested interest, to protect her own shipping in the Gulf, since the Confederacy had no navy to speak of). They wanted to specifically authorize/ask Lincoln to give up the former (which had no legitimate use for the United States once these States had left the Union), and retain the latter while a political compromise was worked out. Lincoln would have none of it. Lincoln’s sending a fleet of ships, filled with military forces and supplies (reported in the New York Times before their departure for points south) ended much of the Unionist sentiment in the Virginia Convention. The call for 75,000 troops to invade the South killed much of the rest of Union sentiment.
Possible, I suppose. Also possible to simply leave them in place until after an arrangement had been worked out. In general terms, giving this new Confederacy everything before beginning the negotiations seems like inept bargaining tactics. How about instead of this idea we propose that the Confederacy, in order to show their good faith, returns all the things they had seized instead. Seems just as reasonable.
As to the "fleet", that may be the weakest "fleet" ever to sail the seas in relation to their times, and the secessionists had been deliberately informed they would not reinforce the fort as long as they were allowed to reprovision it in peace. The soldiers, about 100 of them, carried were only to be landed in case of resistance to the resupply. Some 8000+ SC militia in heavy fortifications awaited them, so it seems unreasonable for the Confederacy to plead fear of invasion.
But again, why is there no outrage at secessionists attacking the US in your opinion? Shouldn't Virginians be angry when South Carolina forces attack their country?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
What has always impressed me about this is the illogic of it. The Confederacy attacks the United States, and the outrage is against Lincoln for reacting to the assault. If Lincoln had done nothing, what would Virginia and Tennessee and Arkansas and North Carolina have done? Applauded him for allowing the country to be abused? Seceded anyway because the US was obviously too weak-kneed to protect them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Protect them from what? The Federal government would seem to be the greatest menace at this point.
I guess I didn't get this point through to you. In the eyes of the world, the US would look weak and indecisive if it did nothing in reaction to an armed assault upon their people. US citizens would thus be subject to greater risk about the world because of reduced prestige and the general belief Americans could be abused with impunity. This would include Virginians, Tennesseans, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
The Confederacy had only extended an invitation to join. The Confederacy was no threat at all, as long as the US government recognized her independence.
Let's dismiss that. The Confederacy has just launched an armed assault on the US at this time -- and as I am sure you realize, that includes VA-TN-NC-AR when Ft. Sumter is attacked. You can say a lot of things, but it is pretty clear that the Confederacy was not only a threat but an active enemy on April 14, 1861 no matter what Lincoln would do in days to come.
Possible, I suppose. Also possible to simply leave them in place until after an arrangement had been worked out. In general terms, giving this new Confederacy everything before beginning the negotiations seems like inept bargaining tactics. How about instead of this idea we propose that the Confederacy, in order to show their good faith, returns all the things they had seized instead. Seems just as reasonable.
As to the "fleet", that may be the weakest "fleet" ever to sail the seas in relation to their times, and the secessionists had been deliberately informed they would not reinforce the fort as long as they were allowed to reprovision it in peace. The soldiers, about 100 of them, carried were only to be landed in case of resistance to the resupply. Some 8000+ SC militia in heavy fortifications awaited them, so it seems unreasonable for the Confederacy to plead fear of invasion.
But again, why is there no outrage at secessionists attacking the US in your opinion? Shouldn't Virginians be angry when South Carolina forces attack their country?
[/i]
[font=Arial]
I guess I didn't get this point through to you. In the eyes of the world, the US would look weak and indecisive if it did nothing in reaction to an armed assault upon their people. US citizens would thus be subject to greater risk about the world because of reduced prestige and the general belief Americans could be abused with impunity. This would include Virginians, Tennesseans, etc.
[font=Arial]
Let's dismiss that. The Confederacy has just launched an armed assault on the US at this time -- and as I am sure you realize, that includes VA-TN-NC-AR when Ft. Sumter is attacked. You can say a lot of things, but it is pretty clear that the Confederacy was not only a threat but an active enemy on April 14, 1861 no matter what Lincoln would do in days to come.
Regards, Tim
Absolutely true. When the US Army began to fight back, a lot of interested southern citizens took affront to the action. At that point, the fight was on.
Absolutely true. When the US Army began to fight back, a lot of interested southern citizens took affront to the action. At that point, the fight was on.
Thanks.
In this context, I certainly agree with John that VA-NC-TN-AR were pushed off the fence on secession by the events of mid-April 1861. That was at least partly becuase of accurate political calculation and skillful manipulation of the public by secessionist leaders to achive their purpose.
While I can understand the emotional angst of citizens in those states at that time when Lincoln called for troops, and see that it is clearly the proximate causal event everyone points to, I do not feel that this was a particularly logical action. I suspect that in a legal sense Lincoln has little choice here.
As he contemplates his next act that April day, one thing seems clear. The US is under attack. He must react to that. If, as Lincoln believes, there is no legal "right of secession", then these are insurrectionists/rebels/revolutionaries shooting at his people. If Lincoln is wrong, then they are foreign enemies shooting at his people. In either case, his duty would be clear -- defend the nation and fight the enemy. His only real means of raising forces is the Militia Act, since Congress is not in session.
It would have been extraordinary if he had done anything other than call for troops in this spot. My feeling is the rest of the country might well have impeached him if he had simply sat there and wrung his hands in this situation.
All of this is why I have trouble with the idea that Lincoln's call for troops is a justification for scession and war by the Upper South. I think they were, like Lee, forced into a situation they never wanted. Legality no longer mattered, and most of what follows is reasoning designed to put a good face on what they knew was a bad choice.
Doesn't this example and counter example boil down to two points.
1) Is there a right to secede, similar to a right to bear arms, or a right against self incrimination?
2) If that right exists, who determines when can it be exercised?
If South Carolina wishes to secede from the US, even if their reasons are unworthy, if the power exists, and one state posesses that power, then SC can secede without interference. They only have to justify secession to their own citizens.
If the right exists, but the case has to be proved, and approved by some process involving the rest of the states, that route wasn't taken in 1860-1.
I think JT is arguing the right exists independently of the need to justify it outside the state that wishes to secede.
Doesn't this example and counter example boil down to two points.
1) Is there a right to secede, similar to a right to bear arms, or a right against self incrimination?
2) If that right exists, who determines when can it be exercised?
If South Carolina wishes to secede from the US, even if their reasons are unworthy, if the power exists, and one state posesses that power, then SC can secede without interference. They only have to justify secession to their own citizens.
If the right exists, but the case has to be proved, and approved by some process involving the rest of the states, that route wasn't taken in 1860-1.
I think JT is arguing the right exists independently of the need to justify it outside the state that wishes to secede.
Matthew, I would simply say that the limitations of Federal powers, on which the Federalists built their case for ratification, means that the lack of a delegation of a Federal power to coerce a State back into the Union means that this power was not delegated to the Federal government (in any of its branches, legislative, executive, or judicial), and thus, its exercise by the Federal government was illegitimate.
Unconditional unionism relies on suppression of the will of the people of the State in question. And while continued membership in the Union is a basis for over-ruling that will (where that will contradicts a provision of the Constitution, because of the supremacy clause), removing one's State from the Union negates the social contract between the people of that State and their agent, the Federal government.
Certainly no power to overthrow an elected State government and replace it with a military governor, was delegated, or intended, in the formation of the Union under the Constitution.
Unconditional unionists ignore, (or try to deny the legitimacy of) the will of the people of that State in addressing the question.
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
Doesn't this example and counter example boil down to two points.
1) Is there a right to secede, similar to a right to bear arms, or a right against self incrimination?
2) If that right exists, who determines when can it be exercised?
If South Carolina wishes to secede from the US, even if their reasons are unworthy, if the power exists, and one state posesses that power, then SC can secede without interference. They only have to justify secession to their own citizens.
If the right exists, but the case has to be proved, and approved by some process involving the rest of the states, that route wasn't taken in 1860-1.
I think JT is arguing the right exists independently of the need to justify it outside the state that wishes to secede.
Matthew,
I'd say it is a bit more complex than that.
I see no reason a state would not be allowed to leave, and I see clear constitutional methods that could be used to accomplish it.
If the slave states thought it really was an existing right, then they could have brought a test case through the court system to get that established legally. In that day, the Supreme Court was regarded as friendly to the South, and the trial of a test case is a normal legal strategy on matters like that. If the Court did affirm the existence of the right, the chances of a peaceful separation would go up greatly. Only negotiation over the details would be required to complete the act.
Legislative action through Congress was another choice. This is simply the reverse of the procedure used to admit Texas fifteen years earlier. Clearly this is easier if the states remain in until the agreement is made, because of their voting power in Congress.
Another option is the amendment process defined in the Constitution. If they can muster enough support, they can get literally anything they want or need done by this method.
What is a problem is the violent, abusive course the seceding states did adopt as they pursued unilateral secession. They seized Federal property (buildings, forts, arsenals, armories, Customs Houses, post office facilites, etc.). They took funds (cash, some $600,000 in specie at the New Orleans Customs House, the funds at the US paymaster's office in New Orleans, etc.). When they seized the New Orleans Mint, the took roughly $500,000 in gold and silver -- which they (the state of Louisiana and then the Confederacy) used to counterfeit US coins until they used up the supply of bullion. They took US military equipment (arms and accoutrements, Customs vessels, supply ship, etc.) They used force and the threat of force to accomplish all this. They besieged two US forts. They cut off payments to Northern merchants (authorizing Southerners to pay the money to the Confederacy, which would hold the money to exert pressure for negotiations). They fired on two US flags ships (and seized several more in Savannah in a dispute with New York). They considered starting the war with an assault on Ft. Pickens, but rejected that because they thought their losses would be high and they might fail. Finally, they attacked Ft. Sumter, firing over 3,000 rounds of heavy artillery into the fort, attempting to kill US soldiers.
None of that can be considered peaceful, legal, or constitutional under Federal law or the laws of the states themselves. Much of it in the states occured before the state itself seceded -- making it hard to claim they were independent nations at the time.
Those who argue for the "right of secession" think all this abusive behavior is somehow justified, and that it was outrageous Federal acts that justified it. The outrageous Federal acts: Anderson moved from Ft. Moultrie to Ft. Sumter, and Buchanan's attempt to send support to the fort using a single hired merchant ship, followed by Lincoln's attempt to reprovision Ft. Sumter.
Those who argue for secession as it was attempted in 1860-61 see no reason that the rest of the nation should have resented this offensive treatment, the Confederacy's repeated seizures, threats, and finally their assault upon the US. History shows us that the rest of the nation did resent it, and when Davis and the Confederacy chose to attack Ft. Sumter, they lit the fuse to the explosive wrath of those they had insulted and abused.
In this, the Confederacy chose trial by combat as the means of deciding whether or not there was a "right of secession". I think that was a foolish decision on their part. I think they had approximately a 50% chance of success by using the other methods. That would have avoided this war at this time and in this place. If they failed, they still could resort to rebellion/war, so what exactly was the reason for all this aggressive abuse they chose to inflict upon the rest of the nation in December 1860 to April 1861? Why make war their first choice?
...What is a problem is the violent, abusive course the seceding states did adopt as they pursued unilateral secession. They seized Federal property (buildings, forts, arsenals, armories, Customs Houses, post office facilites, etc.). They took funds (cash, some $600,000 in specie at the New Orleans Customs House, the funds at the US paymaster's office in New Orleans, etc.). When they seized the New Orleans Mint, the took roughly $500,000 in gold and silver -- which they (the state of Louisiana and then the Confederacy) used to counterfeit US coins until they used up the supply of bullion. They took US military equipment (arms and accoutrements, Customs vessels, supply ship, etc.) They used force and the threat of force to accomplish all this. They besieged two US forts. They cut off payments to Northern merchants (authorizing Southerners to pay the money to the Confederacy, which would hold the money to exert pressure for negotiations). They fired on two US flags ships (and seized several more in Savannah in a dispute with New York). They considered starting the war with an assault on Ft. Pickens, but rejected that because they thought their losses would be high and they might fail. Finally, they attacked Ft. Sumter, firing over 3,000 rounds of heavy artillery into the fort, attempting to kill US soldiers.
None of that can be considered peaceful, legal, or constitutional under Federal law or the laws of the states themselves. Much of it in the states occured before the state itself seceded -- making it hard to claim they were independent nations at the time.
Those who argue for the "right of secession" think all this abusive behavior is somehow justified, and that it was outrageous Federal acts that justified it. The outrageous Federal acts: Anderson moved from Ft. Moultrie to Ft. Sumter, and Buchanan's attempt to send support to the fort using a single hired merchant ship, followed by Lincoln's attempt to reprovision Ft. Sumter.
Those who argue for secession as it was attempted in 1860-61 see no reason that the rest of the nation should have resented this offensive treatment, the Confederacy's repeated seizures, threats, and finally their assault upon the US. History shows us that the rest of the nation did resent it, and when Davis and the Confederacy chose to attack Ft. Sumter, they lit the fuse to the explosive wrath of those they had insulted and abused.
In this, the Confederacy chose trial by combat as the means of deciding whether or not there was a "right of secession". I think that was a foolish decision on their part. I think they had approximately a 50% chance of success by using the other methods. That would have avoided this war at this time and in this place. If they failed, they still could resort to rebellion/war, so what exactly was the reason for all this aggressive abuse they chose to inflict upon the rest of the nation in December 1860 to April 1861? Why make war their first choice?
Regards,
Tim
This defines superbly why I have such a hard time treating seriously the title: "War of Northern Aggression," I grow increasingly frustrated w/ those who brush aside the incidents of aggression of the CS as though they are merely inconvenient facts. War was wanted and planned for by Davis & the CS govt. Davis lied to the four winds when he said otherwise after the war.
The idea that it was about "self determination" is another thing that flies in the face of reality. The future CS saw themselves as a minority losing power & influence. Davis was voted in on a single name ballot... never have understood the democracy of that. Those who were not pro secession in the CS... were ignored or oppressed as a minority who lost power & influence. The hypocricy has always puzzled me.
IMHO politicos started the whole mess and when they lost (having managed not to get themselves in harms way) they wrote books blaming the US or tried to engineer a return to pre Rebellion power. That above all else is why I hold the CS govt in utter contempt.
If that is thought to be harsh; perhaps. It's the view of a man who has been reading the words of men who lived through it. The everyday soldiers of both sides.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
This defines superbly why I have such a hard time treating seriously the title: "War of Northern Aggression," I grow increasingly frustrated w/ those who brush aside the incidents of aggression of the CS as though they are merely inconvenient facts. War was wanted and planned for by Davis & the CS govt. Davis lied to the four winds when he said otherwise after the war.
The idea that it was about "self determination" is another thing that flies in the face of reality. The future CS saw themselves as a minority losing power & influence. Davis was voted in on a single name ballot... never have understood the democracy of that. Those who were not pro secession in the CS... were ignored or oppressed as a minority who lost power & influence. The hypocricy has always puzzled me.
IMHO politicos started the whole mess and when they lost (having managed not to get themselves in harms way) they wrote books blaming the US or tried to engineer a return to pre Rebellion power. That above all else is why I hold the CS govt in utter contempt.
If that is thought to be harsh; perhaps. It's the view of a man who has been reading the words of men who lived through it. The everyday soldiers of both sides.
I agree very much (obviously). I can see the emotion and the dedication of many of these people to the ideas they espoused; that doesn't make their ideas correct or their actions proper.
What is lacking is a clear reason why the South had to act as they did. There is no clear and present danger on their immediate horizon. Lincoln has been elected, but the Republicans will be minorities in both houses of Congress for the moment. Later generations of Southern politicians would show the power of the "Solid South" in Congress even as a minority. None of the things they feared had happened yet, or seemed likely to happen soon.
The "right of secession" itself was controversial in parts of the South. Many did not believe in it, particularly in the Upper South. I saw a statement recently that the North Carolina convention was balanced on a knife's edge on the issue: any vote on the existence of the "right of secession" would probably have drawn a slight majority in favor, any vote on using it would have drawn a slight majority against. In Tennessee, the idea was so controversial the state refused to take a position on it even as they passed an ordinance to leave the Union:
=====
First. We, the people of the State of Tennessee, waiving any expression of opinion as to the abstract doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and independent people, to alter, reform, or abolish our form of government in such manner as we think proper, do ordain and declare that all the laws and ordinances by which the State of Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America are hereby abrogated and annulled, and that all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws and ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the United States, and to absolve ourselves from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred thereto; and do hereby henceforth become a free, sovereign, and independent State.
=====
Interesting, isn't it? They say they are leaving, but not seceding.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
