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.
Very true CW1865, many of the powers originally vested in the states has gravitated to the Federal gov't Because the states were found to either unwilling or unable to exercise such powers with any degree of fairness.
In fact the Constitution, provides means of secession, which must be tried first, Before resortingto Revolution.
Amen. Wow. That is too awesome. Rarely in my lifetime, if at all, (I'm 54) have I met anyone who spoke, or could speak, with such conviction for a cause, then lay down his life for that cause.( Lyon would be the first Union general to die in battle. Killed at Wilson's Creek, Missouri, Aug. 10,1861. In the confusion immediately after the battle, his body was mistakenly left on the battlefield. Confederate soldiers buried him on farmland belonging to a Union soldier. Later after the error was discovered Union soldiers disinterred Lyons body and transported it to his native Connecticut where he was interred in a cemetery near Phoenixville. His funeral service was attended by approx 15,000 people.)
An Unconditional Unionist.
Respectfully,
Leland
Lyon said of himself, "I was born among the rocks," and he was just as hard as those rocks.
In fact the Constitution, provides means of secession, which must be tried first, Before resortingto Revolution.
Hi Opn, thanks for your post. Could you elaborate a little on that statement? (article, clause etc?) Don't think I'm following you here. Thanks.
Respectfully,
Leland
__________________ "What armies and how much of war I have seen, what thousands of marching troops, what fields of slain, what prisons, what hospitals, what ruins, what cities in ashes, what hunger and nakedness, what orphanages, what widowhood, what wrongs and what vengeance."
Lyon said of himself, "I was born among the rocks," and he was just as hard as those rocks.
I believe that. I suppose there were other fine generals in that terrible war who possessed the same conviction, and I doff my kepi to them also. Being so firm in his heart and mind about his stance on the Union is not so unusual in the midst of those other great military leaders, but to be so, and to say so, in such a forceful manner, so early in the conflict, and then to die for those beliefs so early in that war, is truly remarkable, supremely admirable. His battlefield death, in 1861, I suspect, shocked many a soldier, officer, and civilian, on both sides, who thought early on that the rebellion was to be a short conflict where there would not be much bloodshed.
The early death of Union General Lyon was perhaps a wake-up call to some, as Shiloh was to be for the entire nation.
Respectfully,
Leland
__________________ "What armies and how much of war I have seen, what thousands of marching troops, what fields of slain, what prisons, what hospitals, what ruins, what cities in ashes, what hunger and nakedness, what orphanages, what widowhood, what wrongs and what vengeance."
CW 1865, et al., are better qualified to go into the details of the mechanics of a legal (Constitutional) secession. However, The Constitution provides two ways to amend the constitution for describing a specific process to be followed by a state or states for leaving the Union and prescribing how that process might be initiated. Plus, there was a general agreement among the political leaders at the time, recognizing the possibility of a national plebescite of all the citizens of the country to decide the issue of secession or not.
All Constitutional processes would have to be acceptable and agreed to by the whole country or its representatives, which, of course, was the reason the south shunned them.
The South's Leaders were not looking to resolve any issues in 1860, they were only interested in a 100% guaranteed process for secession, legal or not.
The South's Leaders were not looking to resolve any issues in 1860, they were only interested in a 100% guaranteed process for secession, legal or not.
Really? Wouldn't the South have taken the legal route if there had been one? If your earlier statement above is correct, that the Constitution provides means for secession, before resorting to open rebellion, then why didn't the South take that route, and avoid the horrendous bloodshed that was to come?
Respectfully,
Leland
__________________ "What armies and how much of war I have seen, what thousands of marching troops, what fields of slain, what prisons, what hospitals, what ruins, what cities in ashes, what hunger and nakedness, what orphanages, what widowhood, what wrongs and what vengeance."
Really? Wouldn't the South have taken the legal route if there had been one? If your earlier statement above is correct, that the Constitution provides means for secession, before resorting to open rebellion, then why didn't the South take that route, and avoid the horrendous bloodshed that was to come?
Respectfully,
Leland
a) Some in the slave south thought that secession was already legal and Constitutional.
b) Some in the slave south didn't care and were prepared to rebel no matter the legalities.
c) Some in the slave south were convinced that the "mudsills and greasy mechanics" of the north wouldn't or couldn't fight. See the fatuous a*s who promised he would wipe up all the blood spilled with his handkerchief for an example.
d) Some in the slave south thought that a bloodletting was required to bring the slave upper south and border states into the Confederacy. See William Porcher Miles "strike a blow" speech in Charleston for example.
then why didn't the South take that route, and avoid the horrendous bloodshed that was to come?
We've been arguing about this for years now, and we'll likely be arguing about it for years to come. But it's healthier than hanging around in bars and chasing women.
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
All I know is that the Constitutional Amendment process and Nat'l Plebescite, were both available at the time. Both were legal, and the south (or it's leaders, at least) chose not to avail themselves of them. Those processes Especially the two amending processes, were/are embedded in the Constitution and are explicit, unlike the south's 'theory' a state right to unilateral secession.
One can argue Why the south's leaders did not avail themselves of those processes, but, there can be NO argument that the amending processes did Not exist, Nor that they were ignored by the south.
One can argue Why the south's leaders did not avail themselves of those processes, but, there can be NO argument that the amending processes did Not exist, Nor that they were ignored by the south.
Thanks to you and others who input into my question. The info posted here for consideration deliniating the legitimate processes the Constitution offered for redress of state grievances, that the South's leaders actually had at their disposal, and refused to take advantage of for whatever reason, leads me to wonder how on earth anyone of sound mind could blame the rebellion on Lincoln and the North. Wouldn't plain common sense, sound judgement, rumination, and other exercises of the brain dictate that you would first exhaust every single option available to you, before starting a war that would kill hundreds of thousands, many of them your own neighbors?
Respectfully,
Leland
__________________ "What armies and how much of war I have seen, what thousands of marching troops, what fields of slain, what prisons, what hospitals, what ruins, what cities in ashes, what hunger and nakedness, what orphanages, what widowhood, what wrongs and what vengeance."
Clara Barton
Last edited by Glorybound; 08-26-2008 at 07:03 PM.
Reason: Deleted some possibly inflammatory ....words
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Unconstitutional Unionism 
Linear Mode
