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.
Revolution is always outside the law, and the claim by southerons that the 'right to secede' was outside the Constitution, makes it also outside the law, as far as the Federal Gov't is concerned.
No matter how finely one parses words or phrases, the fact remains the southern leadership was advocating acting outside the Constitution and thus the law. Secession was revolution (and many southerners at the time recognized it as such, just not the southern leadership) but because of the influence of their 'peculiar institution' they felt compelled to construct a particular 'theoretical' right that would include the slave owner but would exclude the slave; an exclusion that Revolution did not guarantee.
As the recipient of this barb, I will tell you that the insinuation of a lack of familiarity with the founding of this Republic is insulting. In the interest of keeping this conversation civil, I would ask you to refrain from such in the future.
John,
There is no "barb". This is solely a matter of your own inference, which you appear determined to continue after an explanation. I am not responsible for your mistaken interpertation.
An unbiased reader can see a common thread in these three quotes. An informed student of the period can recognize what they meant, even if he disagrees with that meaning.
Apparently, a biased reader can, as well. You are reading in an editorial, a speech by a pro-secession partisan, and a single, excerpted comment (at odds with other comments by the same man) by a popular icon, a "truth" that isn't all that apparent to everyone.
You seem to be saying that no one else is an informed student of the period or an unbiased reader. That sharply differs from my perception of all opinions posted on this thread. Whether or not I agree with other posters, I find that a significant number on both sides is quite well-informed. I won't say the same about unbiased, but then bias is normal and is to be expected.
Will sign off there, rather than comment on your difference with Tim. I'd only say to both, let it be.
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
You seem to be saying that no one else is an informed student of the period or an unbiased reader.
Not at all. I would suggest that if someone reads the three quotes I provided and can't see a common thread, he may be biased.
An informed student of the period can see that part of the conflict was between two very different views of the nature of the Union. One saw it from a consolidationist/nationalist/Union perspective (the people of the United States were one people, the powers of the Federal government were to be defined by the various agents of that government, e.g. the President, the Congress and the US Supreme Court, the will of the majority ruled supreme) and the opposing view, which I briefly summarized in post 49. You don't have to agree with either of these to acknowledge that these two views existed. To deny that the other side existed seems to me to be an uninformed position.
__________________ "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
To deny that the other side existed seems to me to be an uninformed position.
If you want to sell that claptrap, you might start with better quotes.
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
Trice suggested that he "would have far more respect for them (secessionists) if they had faced the truth of their case as the rebels of 1776 did."
To which Cedarstripper had said, "To do so would be to revolt against the government of their grandfathers."
The purpose of the quotes I provided was to show that the term "government of their grandfathers" held a disputed meaning to the actors of the day, indeed, that dispute was a key component of the overall section dispute of the day. Some secessionists felt they were fighting for the government of their forefathers (defined in post 31 and 49 of this thread). I think the quotes are well-suited to convey that point.
So, is it claptrap because you don't buy the arguments in favor of a constitutionally limited Federal government, or because you don't believe that the secessionists of the day sincerely held these views?
__________________ "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; 10-22-2006 at 12:40 PM.
__________________ 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
You don't believe that the secessionists of the day sincerely held these views? Your response is even more interesting than if you had said the former (you just don't buy the arguments).
Why do you suppose they declared ideas and principles which they disbelieved? I sincerely wish to here your thoughts on this.
Thanks.
__________________ "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
There may well have been a few who sincerely believed they were working for a return to the constitution as they thought is was. The sentiment certainly sounds better than "they want to take our slaves," which didn't play well to the majority of the south or to potential European support. The rub lies in who was blowing smoke and who genuinely believed they were seeking a return to "original intent." And therein lies another quandary: if one seeks a return to some idealistic concept of government of, by and for the people, why doesn't one follow the established procedures designed into the Constitution for that redress? It's kinda like stepping outside the rules in order to re-establish the rules -- or shooting the umpire so as to get another more in line with your concept of the game.
__________________ 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
There may well have been a few who sincerely believed they were working for a return to the constitution as they thought is was. The sentiment certainly sounds better than "they want to take our slaves," which didn't play well to the majority of the south or to potential European support. The rub lies in who was blowing smoke and who genuinely believed they were seeking a return to "original intent." And therein lies another quandary: if one seeks a return to some idealistic concept of government of, by and for the people, why doesn't one follow the established procedures designed into the Constitution for that redress? It's kinda like stepping outside the rules in order to re-establish the rules -- or shooting the umpire so as to get another more in line with your concept of the game.
Somehow lost in all this "original intent" theorizing over the years is that many of the original "Founding Fathers" very clearly felt that slavery should be limited/eliminated. For example, the first President, George Washington wrote to his good friend the Marquis de Lafayette both before and after the signing the act banning slavery in the northwest territory being organized. Beforehand he said he believed it would be the right thing to do. After he did so, he wrote that he believed the right thing had been done.
From the act: "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."
Another Washington-to-Lafayette letter: "Your late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view to emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country; but I despair of seeing it." Seems like Washington, at least, would have loved to see slavery eliminated.
It is also quite clear that the Constitution itself looks to limits on slavery in the future. For example, it allows the Congress to pass legislation to ban the international slave trade after 20 years pass, an indication that Congress was allowed to have at least some power over the issue.
So if the Constitution clearly sees a situation where slavery can be limited, and Washington does, and the Continetal Congress passes a law to limit slavery, isn't it fairly clear that limits to slavery were in the "original intent" of the "Founding Fathers"?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Natural Right of Revolution.... 
Linear Mode
