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.
Taney seems to have had a habit of not being able to resist issueing Obiter Dicta concerning slavery.
The original activist court?
Quote:
I'd read it as more than that: a flat declaration that all this territory was forever more a part of the United States of America.
I still see it as more a promise than an obligation.
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
I'd read it as more than that: a flat declaration that all this territory was forever more a part of the United States of America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
I still see it as more a promise than an obligation.
Hmm: Art. 4. The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Aricles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto. ..."
Hard to see where there is a promise being made. I don't see it as an obligation, either, merely a fact, a condition for being granted admission as a state: this land will "forever" be a part of the United States of America.
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.
I wonder; if the south had not been so rigidly wedded to the idea that the right of secession was beyond the purview of the Constitution and merely claimed that such a right existed and that it resided in the individual states, how would the Taney Court have decided if had come before them during the Kansas-Nebraska imbroglio?
Given Taney's conviction that the founders of the Constitution meant for the slaves to be slaves and remain slaves forever. Would it have required such a big jump for him to find that since the founders meant for slaves to always remain slaves and were not and never had been (and never could be) citizens of the U.S., freed or not, they would not have provided an escape hatch for the south to protect its slaves?
With 20/20 hindsight, it seems obvious, to me at least, that the best (not necessarily certain) chance for the south to peacefully And 'Legally' leave the Union was by a Taney controlled Supreme Court during the middle or latter part of the Buchanan Administration.
Fortunately, the southern leadership was blindly determined to have it Their Way or No Way.
Hard to see where there is a promise being made. I don't see it as an obligation, either, merely a fact, a condition for being granted admission as a state: this land will "forever" be a part of the United States of America.
It could be either way. You say tomahto, I say tomayto. I don't see it, however, as in forbidding secession.
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
As an aside, I notice that one of the uses of obiter dicta are as precedence that can be used in deciding other cases at another time concerning similar questions..
When in my fantasy mode, I could accept the premise that Taney, foresaw a crisis concerning slavery and through the years assiduously, left convenient decisions concerning slavery that years later could be called upon to help justify a decision that he already knew (or suspected) he would be called upon to render sometime in the future.
You're 100% correct, the South definitely should've gotten a decision out of Taney. Even better if Buchanan is the sitting President, because even though Buchanan is of the opinion that its illegal, he doesn't feel he has the right to do anything about it.
The only way I think the South Carolina can get to Taney after Election Day, but before Lincoln's inauguration is if they bring a case involving the US Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. They can do this for cases between states.
If they can do all that before Lincoln takes office, its a done deal.
The thing that I have always found interesting was that because of the Northwest Ordinance, my state of Michigan, and other similar states were added by saying that they had:
A) "an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever"
and
B) Must remain within the Union "forever"
So therefore either,
1) The authors of the Northwest Ordinance either thought that the right of secession did not exist with any states. How can South Carolina secede, if Michigan can't and they both have equal rights in all regards? (keep in mind that this was passed by the US congress a couple years later when the US constitution was in effect a document that also gives equal footing)
OR
2) The authors were being hypocritical towards new states like Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota -- either by accident or deliberately in taking away their right of secession while at the same time saying that those states are equal in all regards in fact even the constitution says that all states are equal in all regards.
I think that it points out there was conflict about the right of secession from the start. In practice everyone realized that secession is foolish for their government. For the same people who wrote and passed the Northwest Ordinance also wrote the US Constitution. You can't create new states and then let them leave, but you also can't create new states and give them less rights treating them like little brother. Secession always was a touchy issue and was avoided even more so than the slavery issue at this time... I don't think anyone can say definitively whether secession was legal or not in 1860, because even the founders disagreed on many issues and avoided many to get the US constitution passed despite the disagreement.
Last edited by michiganmoon; 07-18-2007 at 12:53 PM.
The thing that I have always found interesting was that because of the Northwest Ordinance, my state of Michigan, and other similar states were added by saying that they had:
A) "an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever"
and
B) Must remain within the Union "forever"
...
That's an interesting thought, and one I haven't worked my way through before. Thanks for bringing it up.
BTW, Thomas Jefferson had been a prime mover behind the idea of a Northwest Ordinance to create new states, starting in 1784. Much of what you see may be based on his thought. I am not certain, however, how much involvement he had with the 1787 act.
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.
The 'theory' of states rights in reference to secession, says that there exists a 'right' to secede, 'inherent' in 'all' the states (including Michigan) and that this right was 'retained' by the states when they joined the union, thus it was not a right that was 'given up' by the individual states under the Constitution.
Unfortunately, there was little proof that such a right existed, much less that it was unilateral, once a state joined the Union. The south mainly depended upon the principal of repeating a claim over and over and proclaim it true, in spite of contradictory claims.
Must add my chime. By the way, moon, much good stuff in your post.
I see no evidence that anyone, ever, gave a thought to secession. They were so busy promoting the good things about union that they didn't consider an alternative. Who'd want to opt out?
__________________ 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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
