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.
I read that Jefferson Davis was put into an unenviable spot. Either act or lose some of the Confederate states back to the U.S.
Without Virginia, the Civil War would not have lasted two years. Sumter brought in Virginia, but not victory.
The Confederacy was not equipped for a long war. It had too much territory to protect. It lacked essential industry. It was long on arrogance and a little short on delivery.
The Confederacy fought outside the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. in the end brought back its original territory, at the point of a bayonet.
It wasn't Sumter, Whitworth, it was Lincoln's call for militia. Virginia secessionists had to play a lot of games to get the legislature close to a vote. Lincoln's call kicked it over the top. Then again, Lincoln would have had no reason to call for that militia without Sumter, so ...........
Quote:
The thing is, I don't believe that there is actually a legal basis for the concept that citizens own a tiny fraction of government property. It is owned and administered by the federal government,
And what is the government, Michiganmoon, if it's not an agent of the people? The government is run by the people--at least, it was intended to be run by the people. Kind of a management team to look after the business that concerns all the people in all the states. It was in that sense I advanced the idea that government property is owned by the people. It's simply easier to say "Federal Property" than to go through all the folderol about what it means (or ought to mean).
Did I welcome you to the board? If not; welcome to the board. If so: welcome again.
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
And what is the government, Michiganmoon, if it's not an agent of the people? The government is run by the people--at least, it was intended to be run by the people. Kind of a management team to look after the business that concerns all the people in all the states. It was in that sense I advanced the idea that government property is owned by the people. It's simply easier to say "Federal Property" than to go through all the folderol about what it means (or ought to mean).
People still argue about this concept, now as they did then. Here is part of a long (and very interesting, IMHO) review of a book called "Lincoln's Constitution" by Daniel A. Farber. You can find the rest at http://www.powells.com/review/2004_05_06.html
=====
The core of Lincoln's constitutional vision was his unshakable view that Southern secession was unconstitutional. And this view flowed in turn from his conviction that the people of the United States as a whole, rather than the people of each individual state, were sovereign under the American Constitution. The question of who is sovereign — the people of each state, the people of the nation, or some combination of the two — continues to resonate in the debate about the limits of federal and state power today. In the Supreme Court decision in 1995 striking down state-imposed term limits on federal representatives, a majority of the Court embraced Lincoln's view that the people of the whole nation were sovereign. But Clarence Thomas (joined by William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor) rejected this vision, insisting with John C. Calhoun that "the ultimate source of the Constitution's authority is the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole."
Both Lincoln and Calhoun cited the Founders as authority for their views; but in fact there was no clear consensus about the location of sovereignty in 1787. The most nationalistic Founders may have agreed with Lincoln that the colonies declared independence as a collective body that succeeded to the sovereignty formerly held by the king. But the more nuanced and convincing view among the nationalists was that the ratification of the Constitution transformed the nature of sovereignty. Through the act of ratification (technically illegal under the rules governing the old Articles of Confederation), the people of the United States redefined the sovereignty that had previously been vested in the king and relocated it in themselves.
But even after ratification it was not clear whether the people of each state were sovereign, as Calhoun would argue, or the people of the United States as a whole were sovereign, as James Wilson insisted, or whether the national and state people shared a kind of "dual sovereignty," as James Madison suggested. ...
=====
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Chief Justice Taney, was hightly respected in gov't and the country as a jurist of great acumen, thoroughness and balance, prior to his Dred Scott decision.
It was noted in Simon's book, I believe, that Taney wrote a decision similar to Dred Scott, while in the Jackson Administration in the 1830's. If so then his decision was not out of character at all, but an indication that the character of the citizens of the American Polity may have changed rather than Taney's.
Like his fellow southerners, no matter their intellect, no matter their loyalty to the Union, They would not/could not change their minds and accept that slavery was finite, that it's end was not only foreseeable, but that its time frame was growing shorter, as time passed, that, this intransigence was generating insuperable pressure on the social and political cohesiveness of the United States. The north was slowly responding to that pressure, it was changing its mind about slavery. The south rejected all thought of changing within the confines of the Union.
As others have noted, a terrible storm was approaching and many, especially in the south (and in many ways, Taney also), were preparing to meet it with stiff backs
Taney's ruling on the Dred Scott case was probably constitutionally correct in that Scott could not be freed simply because he had lived, with his owner, in states wherein slavery was illegal. Where the outrage came in was in Taney's addition of opinions not related to the case. (There's a legal term for that which escapes me at the moment.) That the compromise of 1850 was unconstitutional and that states couldn't forbid slavery within their borders stirred the pot of contention.
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
It wasn't Sumter, Whitworth, it was Lincoln's call for militia. Virginia secessionists had to play a lot of games to get the legislature close to a vote. Lincoln's call kicked it over the top. Then again, Lincoln would have had no reason to call for that militia without Sumter, so ...........And what is the government, Michiganmoon, if it's not an agent of the people? The government is run by the people--at least, it was intended to be run by the people. Kind of a management team to look after the business that concerns all the people in all the states. It was in that sense I advanced the idea that government property is owned by the people. It's simply easier to say "Federal Property" than to go through all the folderol about what it means (or ought to mean).
Did I welcome you to the board? If not; welcome to the board. If so: welcome again.
Ole
First of all, thank you for welcoming me to the board!
Down to business. Just because the federal government is an agent of the people as you say, doesn't mean that individuals have ownership in the form you suggest. For instance, say I marry a British girl and move to the United Kingdom and give up my American citizenship. I don't then ask the federal government for my share (apparently 1/300,000,000+ of assets or whatever) nor do I ask for back taxes back. I don't "own" any 'public' property. Much in the same way, individuals did not own Fort Sumter, the federal government did. South Carolina gave it to the federal government. Yes you could argue that the people entrust certain things to the federal government and etc. However, the federal government still runs it and acts as its owner. Even if your notion is correct, a person from South Carolina would have no more of a claim to Fort Sumter than a person from Maine, as they are both US citizens and that the fort is US federal property. Wait a minute...South Carolina renouncing its US status might actually have less of a claim in some ways.
I guess what it boils down to is, the US government had a very legitimate claim to Fort Sumter and I think the CSA tried to respect that at first by trying to purchase the fort. Both sides knew that there would be points of contention like Fort Sumter, but Lincoln couldn't vindicate secession through the sale of the fort to the confederacy and the confederacy couldn't vindicate Lincoln's stance that the CSA wasn't autonomous by letting lincoln stay in what they saw as 'their harbor.' So it came to blows.
On a side note, did you know that the British held onto forts after the Revolutionary War, including on to one in Michigan for over a decade despite the British agreeing to a treaty where the promised to promptly give up the fort. I suppose the US assumed that a fort way out in then backwater Michigan wasn't worth renewing a war over! The Brits were probably trying to bait us into a war or atleast grasp at what they had left.
Taney's ruling on the Dred Scott case was probably constitutionally correct in that Scott could not be freed simply because he had lived, with his owner, in states wherein slavery was illegal. Where the outrage came in was in Taney's addition of opinions not related to the case. (There's a legal term for that which escapes me at the moment.) That the compromise of 1850 was unconstitutional and that states couldn't forbid slavery within their borders stirred the pot of contention.
ole
Ole,
How goes it?
Courts in many southern states had held that, when owners brought their slaves to free territories or states, the slaves became free. (The Supreme Court of Louisiana had even issued decisions freeing slaves whom their masters had taken to France, where slavery was prohibited.) In the decade or so before the War, increasing tensions and resentments caused a number of southern state courts to reverse themselves.
The Supreme Court of Missouri was one of those courts. Before Scott, that court had issued perhaps a dozen decisions holding that slaves who returned to Missouri after residing in a free state or territory with their masters were free -- and it is clear from those decisions that "residence" was construed very liberally.
In Scott, the Supreme Court of Missouri overruled those decisions. It is painfully clear from the decision that it was motivated by anger at the free states. In effect, the Missouri court said, "You don't respect us or our laws; we're not going to respect yours either."
When the case reached the United States Supreme Court, the "easy" decision was simply to hold that the law of Missouri was controlling of the status of persons residing there. In the 1850 case of Strader v. Graham, Chief Justice Taney had held exactly that. A Kentucky state court had held that slaves transported to Ohio and then returned to Kentucky remained slaves under Kentucky law. Taney held that their status was a question of Kentucky law and that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction:
"Much of the argument on the part of the plaintiffs in error has been offered for the purpose of showing that the judgment of the [Kentucky] state court was erroneous in deciding that these negroes were slaves. And it is insisted that their previous employment in Ohio had made them free when they returned to Kentucky.
"But this question is not before us. Every state has an undoubted right to determine the status, or domestic and social condition, of the persons domiciled within its territory; except in so far as the powers of the states in this respect are restrained, or duties and obligations imposed upon them, by the Constitution of the United States. There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that can in any degree control the law of Kentucky upon this subject. And the condition of the negroes, therefore, as to freedom or slavery, after their return, depended altogether upon the laws of that state, and could not be influenced by the laws of Ohio. It was exclusively in the power of Kentucky to determine for itself whether their employment in another state should or should not make them free on their return. The Court of Appeals [of Kentucky] have determined, that by the laws of the state they continued to be slaves. And their judgment upon this point is, upon this writ of error, conclusive upon this court, and we have no jurisdiction over it."
__________________ 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
...In Scott, the Supreme Court of Missouri overruled those decisions. It is painfully clear from the decision that it was motivated by anger at the free states. In effect, the Missouri court said, "You don't respect us or our laws; we're not going to respect yours either."
When the case reached the United States Supreme Court, the "easy" decision was simply to hold that the law of Missouri was controlling of the status of persons residing there. In the 1850 case of Strader v. Graham, Chief Justice Taney had held exactly that. A Kentucky state court had held that slaves transported to Ohio and then returned to Kentucky remained slaves under Kentucky law. Taney held that their status was a question of Kentucky law and that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction:
...
Understandable and probably correct under the law as it was then. If that was all the Taney Court ruled in Scott, the North would have grumbled and groused, and that would have been it, IMHO.
But Taney -- who apparently was going to let it go at that at first -- reacted strongly when the desenting Justices indicated they were going to lay the issues out in much greater detail in their opinions. Taney then seems to have hone off the deep end in his response (and while we're at it, every other Justice seems to have decided he needed to get his two-cents in by writing their own opinion).
Taney appears to have decided he would rule on everything that involved slavery anywhere, throwing out United States laws extending back to before there even was a Constitution, so that he and his Court alone, would be the dictator on the issue. The Northwest Ordnance of 1787, the Compromise of 1820, any law at all that contradicted with his view was tossed out. In the end, Dred Scott at least implies that neither the US government nor any state North, South, East or West has any power to interfere with slavery anywhere.
The resulting decision and the supporting/conflicting opinions seem to have had the effect of pouring oil on a small fire: outrage erupted in the North, crowing arrogance in the South over their victory, resulting in a very human escalation of the struggle and greater unity against slavery.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Taney's ruling on the Dred Scott case was probably constitutionally correct in that Scott could not be freed simply because he had lived, with his owner, in states wherein slavery was illegal. Where the outrage came in was in Taney's addition of opinions not related to the case. (There's a legal term for that which escapes me at the moment.) That the compromise of 1850 was unconstitutional and that states couldn't forbid slavery within their borders stirred the pot of contention.
ole
Obiter dictum is the term that means that part of the opinion does not get to the point of the case.
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Unintended Consequences 
Linear Mode
