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, I think you are not using the word "Union" correctly here.
It always tickles me when you try to argue against the historical record, which is why I always try to go there first. I am only using the word "Union" in the same sense that James P. Holcombe, "B" (author of the Enquirer editorial), and Lee were. If you think that "B," Holcombe, and Lee were using a meaning of the word "Union" that was not in use during the Civil War, I guess you could argue that, but since these men were there at the time, it would seem more than a little bit quixotic on your part to tell these men that they are being anachronistic.
To your point, I think that it is obvious that these men don't mean a mere geographical entity when they said "Union," but meant a political society with certain attributes and traditions. "The Union of our forefathers" was a euphemism for the Union as originally conceived: The people of the States came together to create the Federal government as their common agent for specific purposes (e.g. "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty."). The people of the States endowed their agent with certain enumerated powers (mostly found in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, but all of the legitimate Federal powers were enumerated somewhere in the Constitution).
That is pretty much standard antebellum Democratic party doctrine, maybe not universal, but generally held by Democrats both North and South (although by 1860, northern Democrats had evolved into a somewhat whiggish position). This doctrine pre-dates sectional slavery controversies (e.g. Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions of 1798-9). Those sectional slavery controversies exacerbated the conflict, and increased its sectional nature. The arrival in power of a new party that was largely what Jeffersonians (and 1860's southern Democrats) would have called "consolidationist" in its outlook was one of the causes for concern. Northern consolidationists "have stretched the powers of the General Government – first, to plunder the Southern people of their income by Protective Tariffs – and then, to confiscate or wrest their capital from them by overthrowing the institution of slavery. They are the authors of Abolition. They have taught the Northern people that the Federal Government have no limitations but the will of a majority in Congress; and consequently, that that majority is responsible for the continuance of slavery." (Charleston Mercury, August 18th 1860, pg. 1, col. 2) In other words, once northerners decided that the Federal government could do anything the majority wanted it to do, then it was responsible for any sin that happens in any State, since the consolidated Federal Union has the power to correct the injustice. Democrats tried to counter that the Federal government was only responsible for those things that the Constitution specifically delegated to it, and was not responsible for anything outside its power. And the States were responsible for complying with burdens placed on them by the provisions of the Constitution (e.g. Rendition of Fugitives from Justice and Fugitives from Labor). This was what was meant by the phrase the “Union of our forefathers.”
__________________ "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 entire point, John, is that the secessionists themselves denied they were engaging in revolution.
Some denied it, others didn't. I showed you quotes from secessionists at that time who were quite clear that they felt they were engaging in revolution.
So what we have established is that the South wasn't a monolith on the issue.
__________________ "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
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.
On the "natural right of revolution", secessionists denied that they were exercising it. Jefferson Davis denied it before, during, and after the Civil War. So naturally, you will not find it in the declaration of causes.
The doctrine of secession says that the "right of secession" exists as a "state's right" because it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. If that were to be found true, they have no need of the "natural right of revolution" because they would have the legal "right of secession". Since secessionists insisted they had this right and were exercising it, they must (logically) deny they were using the "natural right of revolution". They could not do both because they are exclusive of each other.
South Carolina insisted (even amongst themselves at the Secession Convention) on excluding all other causes in their Declaration of Causes. Just as you read it, everything they wrote is concerned with a dispute on the right to own slave property. This was a conscious decision, because we can find the discussion of it in the records of their secession convention.
That secession convention produced another document in the form of an appeal to their sister slave states to join them in secession. That is about what you would expect from a political harrangue, and it does mention other issues. But note the difference: one is a straight-forward description of the causes of their action; the other is a political document intended to inflame and sway others. If you step back and ask why issues like the tariff and state's rights are mentioned in one and not the other, Occam's Razor would reveal the truth, I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CChartreux
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.
The "state's rights" argument was around long before the Civil War. But the South had often shown through the decades that they were willing to trample on the issue of "state's rights" whenever they found themselves in conflict over slavery with other states. Debates over tariffs were local and economic based for the most part. For example, the only section of the country that benefitted from a tariff on sugar was Louisiana, and the western counties of Virginia favored the Morrill Tariff of 1861 because they were involved with the iron-and-steel business out of Pittsburgh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CChartreux
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.
Up into the 1850s, most other Southerners regarded South Carolina as not-quite-sane on the subject of secession. The only debate there seemed to be over whether South Carolina should secede by herself or wait for other states to convince other states to act with her before seceding.
Other states that produced declarations of why they seceded tend to rely very heavily on slavery as well, with a brief mention or two of the tariff issue and (in Texas) of a Federal failure to protect them against the depradations of Indians and Mexican bandits like Juan Cortina.
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
True.
Soldiers (on both sides) enunciated similar ideals, as laid out in McPherson's book For Cause and Comrades.: for home, for the guy in ranks next to him, for the Union/South.
Why the southern States left the Union is a different question.
Why Lincoln didn't let them go in peace (with a bill) is another different question.
__________________ "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
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?.
The author of this letter to the editor/guest editorial was using a nom de plume of "B." I have no idea who he was, but in January 1860 (the aftermath of Harper's Ferry apotheosis of John Brown), he was ready to leave the Union.
And you're right, it is kind of creepy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew mckeon
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.
I think McPherson makes exactly that point.
__________________ "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 doctrine of secession says that the "right of secession" exists as a "state's right" because it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. If that were to be found true, they have no need of the "natural right of revolution" because they would have the legal "right of secession". Since secessionists insisted they had this right and were exercising it, they must (logically) deny they were using the "natural right of revolution". They could not do both because they are exclusive of each other.
Tim, I would bet that the reason South Carolina didn't bang on about the natural right of revolution (and tried to emphasize a constitutional right to secession) was because South Carolina was 58.6% black, and if blacks got hold of this natural-right-to-revolution business, things could get ugly quick.
Best let that sleeping dog lie.
__________________ "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
Last edited by JohnTaylor; 10-15-2006 at 01:57 PM.
I'm not going to comment on the ins and outs of the constitutionality or legality of secesssion, having little useful to add.
When some Southern leaders talked about conserving the ideals and values of the Founders, they seem to be preserving the social ideas of the 18th century. Their ideas of "rights" are not the egalitarian ethos growing up in industrial, multi-ethnic societies(wealth being the only social marker), but specific, individual rights, and elites based on more than just wealth.
Samuel Johnson fumed about the slaveholidng American Revolutionaries, prating about liberty. What a field day he would have had with the Confederacy.
I could be just caressing a cold corpse here, but that my fond thought.
Some denied it, others didn't. I showed you quotes from secessionists at that time who were quite clear that they felt they were engaging in revolution.
So what we have established is that the South wasn't a monolith on the issue.
Actually, John, if you are referring to the quotes you most recently posted, none of them show what you assert.
Also, I made absolutely no reference to geography in what I posted. "The Union" meant the United States, joined together -- all of them -- in the very same Union that predated the US Constitution. This was common usage in the days before the Civil War. It is also evident in the very quotes you are posting. I am not sure why you seem to be missing this, because it is a staple of historical and political discussion for generations. Do you perhaps come from a different background, having grown up outside of this country and so not familiar from early life with how the country developed?
Tim, I would bet that the reason South Carolina didn't bang on about the natural right of revolution (and tried to emphasize a constitutional right to secession) was because South Carolina was 58.6% black, and if blacks got hold of this natural-right-to-revolution business, things could get ugly quick.
Best let that sleeping dog lie.
Bet away, John. I doubt, personally, any South Carolina politician would have mentioned that in public if it had ever come to the forefront of his consciousness.
Blacks were not considered people on the same level as whites in that day and time. The concept of what "rights" they had is not what you seem to imagine. If it had been, there would have been no slavery. This is, for example, the theory that Senator Hammond of South Carolina expressed in his "Mud Sill" speech of the late 1850s.
If you disagree, please try to reconcile the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights with the operation of slavery and the concept that black people had a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". They are incompatible. Human beings have always been capable of swallowing camels and straining at gnats, or ignoring the beam in their own eye to see the mote in another's. Your position here is simply an illustration of it.
But please note: if you happen to be right, you merely confirm my own position that the secessionists were unable to face the facts about what they were doing.
Revolution by the slaves, would depend what the Slaves thought of themselves and their rights, Not what a Southernernm slaveholder thought about them. A successful revolution by their masters, who claimed they were resisting subjugation, would certainly give many slaves much food for thought. For the South, much better to stick to legalities, if possible.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
