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.
To do so would be to revolt against the government of their grandfathers.
It would seem that some Virginians felt they were fighting for the Union of their forefathers:
“The Union, as our fathers formed it, does not exist - it is dead! and he who dreams it lives is like the fond child that caresses a corpse and calls it mother. ... Like Rome, in the days of lawlessness and faction, our country is given over to the spoilers, and liberty here, as then and there, is being strangled in the strong grasp of merciless and unprincipled demagogues." Richmond Enquirer, January 20th 1860, pg. 1, col. 7-8.
“... 'Whenever this Union and your liberties cannot exist together, throw the Union to the winds, and clasp the liberty of your country to your heart.' … I have also maintained, that, with friendship gone, equality gone, liberty gone, this Union, if it was commended to us by the ignoble dictates of prudence, would be spurned by the truer and more generous instincts of manhood. Unless it be planted upon the everlasting rock of justice, the sooner it is overthrown the wiser, and manlier, and better. … I, and many another worthier and better son, ... will rather abandoned the ashes than the principles of our fathers, and will say, with the old Roman, 'where liberty is, there is my country.' … The true colors of your country are the spirit and the principles of your fathers; live under them in freedom, or perish with them in honor." James Philemon Holcombe, Proceedings of the Virginia Convention, Vol. 2, pg. 111.
Robert E. Lee letter to Mr. Chauncey Bure, January 5, 1866 "All the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved; and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." Personal Reminiscences of General Robert E. Lee, page 189.
__________________ "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
They were unwilling to boldly proclaim their revolution, and denied that they were. If they had, I would have more respect for their position.
How exactly does a state in a federal union "proclaim revolution" besides declaring independence from that union?
I have already shown you the quotes from the secessionists of the period in which they quite specifically declared that secession was revolution.
__________________ "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
How exactly does a state in a federal union "proclaim revolution" besides declaring independence from that union?
I have already shown you the quotes from the secessionists of the period in which they quite specifically declared that secession was revolution.
You've asked this before. I assumed you were joking at the time. Are you really treating this as a serious procedural point? If so, note that there is no method established for a "right of secession", and no evidence or precedent for a legal or constitutional "right of secession" existing at any time prior to 1860. How then, does one procedurally declare a right that does not exist?
The entire point, John, is that the secessionists themselves denied they were engaging in revolution. In the theories they concocted, the "right of secession" was a legal right they had always had. It is possible to argue that, moreso before the Civil War than now, but it is not possible to demonstrate that such a right existed for them to use.
My own position would be that -- as I have already said -- the Civil War was an example of a group trying to exercise the "natural right of revolution". There is no need to declare it, although people often do to rally support. It is obvious from the illegal acts and use of force. By the actions of the secessionists, this is de facto a rebellion or revolution against the government; by the declaration of the Federal government, and the subsequent legislative and judicial confirmation of it, this was de jure a rebellion.
What I note is the hypocrisy of secession, the refusal, in effect, to call a spade a spade. Revolution has some bad connotations to it (as well as penalties if you lose) and it appears the secessionists were unwilling to accept the responsibility of it. That is what the facade of a "right of secession" was about, in my view. It is either a propaganda device, or self-denial of an obvious fact.
Washington and Hancock and Adams and Franklin and Carroll and Jefferson and the rest had no such qualms. They knew they were English subjects. They knew they were revolting against their lawful King. They admitted it freely. They felt they were exercising the "natural right of revolution" and said so. At the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Ben Franklin said: "Now we must all hang together, or we shall surely hang separately." He was indulging in gallows humor, because they all knew the history of revolt against the King.
If they had somehow forgotten, there were plenty of Scots around to tell them about the Duke of Cumberland and why they dubbed him "The Butcher" in 1745.
Please note that Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, denied that secession was revolution before, during, and after the Civil War. Davis eagerly attempted to arrange his own trial for treason after the war in order to "prove" this in court. Clearly, he disagreed with you.
Regards,
Tim
It would seem that some Virginians felt they were fighting for the Union of their forefathers: ....
John, I think you are not using the word "Union" correctly here.
In that day and place, the word "Union", especially when capitalized, was used to mean the United States as a whole. The secessionists had decided to leave that Union, and if you really want to look, you will find many quotes like this one being given by secessionists when the act of secession passed in their states: "The Union is dissolved".
If you want to say that they were talking about the concepts and beliefs of the Founding Fathers, you can build an argument. But it was very clear to them that they were trying to dissolve the Union, the United States, not fight for it. Your interpretation, as presented, is incorrect and misleading.
As to the words of Lee in 1866, we have been through this before. In the days of the Winter of Secession, Lee made his personal position clear many times over a space of four months. He regarded secession as treason, equivalent to anarchy, nothing but revolution. He said so in conversations and private letters. At the same time, he also maintained throughout that he would follow Virginia whatever she did. Faced with what he must have considered intolerable choices, he stayed true to Virginia and his family, right or wrong, because he had been educated to believe that was his primary duty and loyalty.
It would seem that some Virginians felt they were fighting for the Union of their forefathers
That is partly what I meant when I wrote "To do so would be to revolt against the government of their grandfathers. Rather than a matter of revolution, I'm of the impression that the repeated invocation of the DOI type language in the secession documents was used to posture the secessionists as their generation's version of the founders."
The other part of what I meant is that, whenever I read their writings, I can't help but get the impression that they were posturing themselves, win or lose, to go down in history as 1860s versions of Washingtons, Jeffersons, Madisons, Henrys, etc. I think their claim to ultra-Americanism though was entirely self-serving and narrow. IMHO, the founders would have choked on Steven's "Cornerstone Speech."
It would seem that some Virginians felt they were fighting for the Union of their forefathers:
There is a substantial difference between what the secessionists said when they were promoting separation and what the soldier's said when they were bleeding and dying in the secessionists' war.
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
JohnTaylor,
The quote about the "fond child caressing a corpse and calls it mother" has a creepy Norman Bates vibe about it. Who edited the Examiner anyway, Alfred Hitchcock?
An excellent argument can be made that the secessionists, and their fellow travellers felt that they were conserving the country's institutions, as they were, while the Lincoln Administration was going to be the agent of change.
The problem is that all of the parties agreed in accepting the Constitution to submit all such contractual matters and controversies to the United States Supreme Court. South Carolina has no right to set themselves up as judge nor jury on such an issue -- and actually violates the pledged oaths of every elected and appointed state official when they attempt to do so."
"If they had actually wanted to follow through on that idea, their course would be clear: bring a test case to the Supreme Court and have them decide the issue. When they don't do that, the entire idea of the compact argument goes out the window." [trice/#16]
It appears I was unsuccessful in establishing my point. I wasn't suggesting that South Carolina had the 'right' to set themselves up as judge and jury when I said the following:
"Obviously, this is South Carolina's opinion and they've assumed unto themselves the privileged ranks of both judge and jury by which to pronounce such charges as legitimate..."
My point was that: I find it interesting that neither states' rights nor 'natural right to revolution' are referred to in South Carolina's own declaration of causes. Which is to say that I don't think South Carolina itself made the argument of state's rights nor 'natural right to revolution' if we are to believe what they actually said when they spoke on their own behalf. In other words, the Declaration of Causes document is not a commentary or an interpretation or opinion of a historian; it's what South Carolina actually said when attempting to explain themselves. I'm not agreeing with it - I'm saying that 'states' rights' and 'natural right of rebellion' aren't anywhere in the document - and yet people continue to makes arguments (points of view, whatever) on 'states right' and 'natural right of rebellion' - when it would seem apparent that South Carolina never said such a thing in official documents.
Whatever politicians and newspapers said may be one thing - whatever. I think it's interesting that South Carolina uses none of the language one might expect to see in a 'Declaration of Causes' document. It makes me wonder if the whole state's rights, etc., etc., was more part of the 'Lost Cause' paraphenalia rather than a legitimate and accurate position of South Carolina.
I use South Carolina because they were the first state to secede - it's a more interesting argument. The rest of the states can be busted on Article 1, Section 10 (No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, etc.,); which makes their case less interesting (IMHO) and less compelling.
I offered this point because I found the original article that Elektratig posted (i.e., it would have been impossible for the South to argue 'natural right of revolution' because their own world-view at the time would have prohibited the adoption of Lockean sentiments) a very interesting article because (IMHO) it refutes the present-day argument of 'natural right to revolution' - and yet some Southern sympathizers continue to argue the legitimacy of secession based on 'natural right of rebellion'. The author of the article explains why such a justification of secession wouldn't have been possible for Southerners (at that time) to hold as valid. In a similar vein, I'm simply hoping to add another dimension to this in pointing out that South Carolina's own Declaration of Causes document does not contain language typically found in arguments forwarded by those wishing to justifiy secession.
Last edited by CChartreux; 10-15-2006 at 12:34 AM.
Concerning the South, they were fighting for the wrong document. With the emphasis they placed on states rights, it seems to me they wanted to revert this country back to the Articles of Confederation which quickly failed. Even their Grandfathers realized it. No, the secession was a bid to derail our constitution and all the case law, legislation, and regulations written up to that point. It is what every tyrant in the Royal line they broke away from did going back into the mists of time. One such example would be Henry VII's actions after the battle of Bosworth Field. The illegitimate son of the royal line was so far from legal secession to the throne, it would never have come to him. The first thing he does is backdate his rule to the day before the battle and try all of his opponents for treason. Precisely would have done to every unionist south of the M/D line.
Respectfully,
Matt
__________________ Great-Great Grand Nephew of George H. Pfau, 4th NJ Vol Infantry
Last edited by milhistbuff1; 10-15-2006 at 12:50 PM.
The quote about the "fond child caressing a corpse and calls it mother" has a creepy Norman Bates vibe about it. Who edited the Examiner anyway, Alfred Hitchcock?
I am not sure who was editor for this statement, but one of the principal editors of the Richmond Examiner during the Civil War was Edward A. Pollard, best known for writing The Southern History of the War (3 volumes, 1862-64), The Lost Cause (1866), The Lost Cause Regained (1868), and The Life of Jefferson Davis (1869).
Before the war, Pollard attended the University of Virginia and then William and Mary, was admitted to the bar in Baltimore, moved to California where he worked in the newspaper trade until 1855. He was a clerk for the House Judiciary Committee in Washington 1857-1861. By 1859, he was an avid and well-known secessionist.
He also wrote Black Diamonds Gathered in the Darkey Homes of the South (1859), which strongly urged re-opening the Atlantic Slave Trade, and engaged in an exchange of letters with Rhett of the Charleston Mercury about the need to do so in 1858. The Rhett-Pollard reasoning seems to have been that the rising price of slaves would lead to a rich man/poor man class divide in the South that would tend to make poor Southern whites align with Northerners. Their solution was to increase the supply of slaves by reopening the slave trade from Africa, thereby creating more slaveowners by making slaves more affordable.
The Richmond Examiner was a noted secessionist paper in the pre-war days. Another editor of it attended the meeting where ex-Governor Floyd was planning the capture of Harper's Ferry before the Secession Convention voted, IIRR.
As for the rather purple prose involved in the "fond child caressing a corpse and calls it mother", well ... that sort of thing was fairly common in public debate and newspapers at the time, North and South, East and West. I don't care for it, but it was what passed for journalism in those days.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
