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.
We're really discussing how the Confederates could've actually pulled off an actual secession and not really debating the actual legality of secession. You've seen my posts before and should know I am an anti-secessionist. But the South does claim a legal right to secession.
Yes, but no such right was established and the South itself had many who said it did not exist -- such as Robert E. Lee, who equated it to treason and anarchy in 1860-61. But a legal "right of secession" is not the "natural right of revolution".
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
Actually their claim of a right to revolution is intertwined with the compact theory of the Constitution and the Southerners allege a breach of the compact (ie. breaching the compact gives rise to a right of revolution). Their problem is that the 'breach' is the failure of sister states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, which is NOT a Federal breach (bring a lawsuit in Fed. Court for damages) and which is also ironic inasmuch as the Fugutive Slave Act only acts against the 'state rights' of free-states.
The only party empowered to decide such an issue is the US Supreme Court -- and ALL the parties (i.e., the states) have agreed to submit all such questions to them in agreeing to the Constitution.
The Court might decide a "breach" had occurred -- and also decide that no "right of secession" existed under the Constitution. It might then try to come up with a "remedy" to heal the breach -- and might decide breaking the bonds of the Union was appropriate, or entirely too drastic a "remedy".
The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act might be the greatest violation of the concept of "states' rights" there ever was, but it benefitted slave owners, so the Southern states liked it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
That, I hadn't actually considered. A series of filibusters, perhaps? I was thinking more along the lines of presenting some sort of bill for secession, letting it be known that a 'no' vote is a vote for war. With Southern Congressmen and Senators still voting you don't need a majority of the Northern voters, you just need enough to get you over the threshold. So, theoretically it could be quick..
I think all you need is some 1860 Southern leaders who had the skill to do what the "Solid South" did in Congress for decades in the 20th Century through adroit use of the Committee system and seniority rules. The Republicans don't have a majority in either House of Congress after the 1860 election, so just how hard is it to stymie legislation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
On this point, I think your 'no patience' theory would apply! Plus of course you have the super-majority problem..
Yes, that makes it a little difficult to get a new Amendment passed. But with 15 slave states they only need another 5 or 6 to get it passed. NJ almost always voted with the South, and the West Coast might easily have seen benefit in such an amendment in 1860-61, before the telegraph and the RR connected it to the East. But again, if they threaten to lock the nation up for years in Congress if it doesn't get done ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
Maybe instead of firing on Fort Sumter, they attempt to evict Feds in Federal court?.
Maybe. <g>
All they really have to do is to get the Supreme Court to declare they did, indeed, have a "right of secession" as they defined it and the Federals would be tresspassers in a foreign country. However, nothing says the Court would have agreed that the "right of secession" meant what the Southern Fire-Eaters wanted it to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
Draft Opinions? Point me in the right direction, I'd like to see one. My opinion is that Taney will decide in favor of the secessionists, his decisions are clearly pro-slavery. My ONLY reservation is that he is a literalist.
There's a book I've seen that might address this: "Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers" by James F. Simon. I haven't read it, but the word-of-motuh is good.
Apparently he was not necessarily in favor of secession, but was strongly in favor of it when the choice was a Civil War. He had draft opinions tucked away to overturn the Emancipation Proclamation, conscription, and a few other things but died in 1864 without a test case coming before his Court.
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.
<<<"All they really have to do is to get the Supreme Court to declare they did, indeed, have a "right of secession" as they defined it and the Federals would be tresspassers in a foreign country. However, nothing says the Court would have agreed that the "right of secession" meant what the Southern Fire-Eaters wanted it to be.">>>
There might be a difference between right of secession and ownership of Fort Sumter. South Carolina had passed legislation giving the federal government complete ownership of the man-made-federally-created-island that became Fort Sumter. It is possible for South Carolina to have the right to secede, but not have the right to take US property/land with themself, furthermore there are no SC civilians on the island that they gave up their legal rights to in the first place.
If a right to secede were found, its pretty clear that both sides would've had to sit down to settle differences like national debt, boundaries, assets, etc. Fort Sumter would most likely have been included in those discussions.
If a right to secede were found, its pretty clear that both sides would've had to sit down to settle differences like national debt, boundaries, assets, etc. Fort Sumter would most likely have been included in those discussions.
Oh, I completely agree. Yet that doesn't mean that the US government would have to or want to give up its property, inlcuding Fort Sumter. I could understand why the CSA/SC would want Fort Sumter and for good reason, but I'd bet the US would say that is nice that you want it, but its clearly ours and we're keeping it and we're not losing any more than we have to. I could see it being a point of contention sort of like the Rock of Gibraltar with the United Kingdom hanging onto something that is practically Spain.
Each citizen owned a fractional piece of every Federal installation. It is conceivable to me that the Confederacy could be persuaded to give up its collective share of northern installations in return for southern installations.
On second thought, belay that. If the southern states secede, it would more likely be argued that they should pay the northern states for their share of the ceded installations.
Now. If my memory hasn't failed, didn't the CSA try to offer to do just exactly that? Negotiate a share of the national debt, monies owed northern interests, and compensation for siezed forts and properties?
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
Each citizen owned a fractional piece of every Federal installation. It is conceivable to me that the Confederacy could be persuaded to give up its collective share of northern installations in return for southern installations.
On second thought, belay that. If the southern states secede, it would more likely be argued that they should pay the northern states for their share of the ceded installations.
Now. If my memory hasn't failed, didn't the CSA try to offer to do just exactly that? Negotiate a share of the national debt, monies owed northern interests, and compensation for siezed forts and properties?
It is pretty sure they had "something" in mind, but no one is sure what it would have included.
What is known is that they acted aggressively first, seizing everything they could lay their hands on without any attempt to act peacefully or legally, that they threatened to withhold even legal civilian debts as a means of pressuring the US and repudiate their share of all national debt, etc., as a means of exerting pressure to get what they wanted. They threatening violence and used armed force, they fired on at least 2 US flag ships, closed the harbor of Charleston to US ships, seized US funds, Customs facilities and ships, arsenals, forts, Mints, funds and bullion, etc. Of this there is no doubt at all, and the Confederates themselves were rather proud of it.
None of this is the sort of activity associated with peaceful negotiations. Most or all of it would be considered an act of war under international law. Whatever else, no one can claim that the Confederacy/the seceding states were acting as peaceful negotiators and friendly parties in late 1860 and early 1861.
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.
All they really have to do is to get the Supreme Court to declare they did, indeed, have a "right of secession" as they defined it and the Federals would be tresspassers in a foreign country. However, nothing says the Court would have agreed that the "right of secession" meant what the Southern Fire-Eaters wanted it to be."
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
<<<"There might be a difference between right of secession and ownership of Fort Sumter. South Carolina had passed legislation giving the federal government complete ownership of the man-made-federally-created-island that became Fort Sumter. It is possible for South Carolina to have the right to secede, but not have the right to take US property/land with themself, furthermore there are no SC civilians on the island that they gave up their legal rights to in the first place.
Hmm, I think we have to go back before anything as small as the issue of Ft. Sumter.
The Supreme Court might do a lot of things.
For example, they might say that any state could secede at any time, and leave all the questions of the process unresolved -- this is what the Fire-Eaters insisted the case was. But I don't think it likely they would leave the details undefined.
They might also decide there was no "right of secession" under the Constitution, and that once a state was in, it was in forever, in which case the Fire-Eaters would be outraged. I doubt they would have been quite that unequivocating.
They might have found that while there was no clear-cut "right of secession", a state might be allowed to leave as a "remedy" to a "breach" of the basic agreement between the states in a drastic situation. However, when such things are done, the "remedy" has to be appropriate and commensurate to the "breech". It is very hard to see where any Court would find the actions taken by the US Government prior to Lincoln's election were sufficient to justify the "remedy" of secession. If anything, Federal actions before the Civil War are strongly in support of Southern interests.
But it is wholly and completely unlikely that any court of law would have ruled that any "right of secession" or "remedy" of secession would be allowed without due process. Either they would have set up the rules and conditions themselves and imposed them upon the country (unlikely, IMHO) or they would have kicked the issue back to the country (probably to Congress) and made them thrash out the conditions and rules by which secession could proceed.
That of course invokes a lengthy process, since even if Congress could work it out, they probably would have felt compelled to send it to the states for confirmation. Perhaps we would have seen state conventions convened to ratify the proposal. Perhaps there would have been an Amendment to the Constitution as a result, with all that implies.
The longer that process takes, the less likely I think the Southern states will want to secede. Time is the enemy of hot-headed action. People consider too much, too many worries surface, too many things can happen to distract the people and confuse the issue.
None of this is what the Fire-Eaters want; they want complete freedom to do whatever they want, with no restrictions. No court will support that, because it is the antithesis of the Rule of Law, it is anarchy.
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 most telling point in this series of posts is that the fire-eaters knew that the heat was in their favor and that it wouldn't last.
Now. The fire-eaters were left out of the Confederate Congress. I wouldn't characterize Jeff Davis as a fire-eater. How much influence did they have on the fateful order to open fire? Or did they just get the ball rolling to the point where it couldn't very well be stopped?
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
The most telling point in this series of posts is that the fire-eaters knew that the heat was in their favor and that it wouldn't last.
Now. The fire-eaters were left out of the Confederate Congress. I wouldn't characterize Jeff Davis as a fire-eater. How much influence did they have on the fateful order to open fire? Or did they just get the ball rolling to the point where it couldn't very well be stopped?
The most telling influence of the Fire-Eaters is in getting secession enacted by the states in the first place. Once that is done, their influence starts declining.
For example, there is no doubt that Rhett, owner of the Charleston Mercury, is one of the major leaders of secession and the Fire-Eaters. He's a leading figure right up to the moment it happens, and then starts the slide down. He wanted to be the first Governor of an independent South Carolina -- and the state picked Pickens, just returned from a diplomatic post in Russia. He went to Montgomery as a SC delegate -- and his proposals on reopening the Atlantic Slave trade were defeated, etc. He ends up a minor, cantankerous, back-bench opposition to Davis figure of the Confederacy.
The story is much the same for the rest. The real Fire-Eater leaders wanted things that didn't set too well with the established leaders once it came to actually running the new country. Too radical, too independent, too anti-big-government "states rights" for them.
One good source for this is a book called "A Government of Their Own" by Jack Davis, IIRR. It covers the period when the Confederacy was forming in Montgomery, AL and ends when they move to Richmond.
As far as the order to open fire on Sumter goes, that would be hard to say. For the most part, the new Confederacy could only go forward or back. If it was seen as weak-willed or indecisive, the whole think could still unravel in a hurry. Like all rebellions/revolutions, they needed to rack up a success and get everyone charging forward towards the goal, so allowing a long drawn-out unresolved situation is not to their advantage. The conservatives had lots of reasons they wanted Sumter.
At the same time, the public furor in Charleston and elsewhere was being whipped up by the same people who had driven for secession. The newspapers helped fuel the fire, and one of them was Rhett's Mercury.
When you come down to the moment, I think Davis bases his decision on calculation: he personally sees war coming, he doesn't think it can survive without the Upper South and particularly VA, and he sees taking Sumter as a way to get that accomplished. At the same time, noted VA Fire-Eater Roger Pryor is in Charleston giving firey speeches to the crowds and serving as a volunteer aide to Beauregard (while still serving as a US Congressman -- a clear case of treason), urging the Confederacy to "strike a blow!" so that Virginia will secede. This speech is reported to Davis in Montgomery before the first shot is fired.
As a result, I think the influence of the states that had already seceded might be declining, while the importance of influence of those from the Upper South might still be waxing strong. Until those states joined the Confederacy, the powers-that-be in Montgomery would need and want to encourage and support them.
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.
Each citizen owned a fractional piece of every Federal installation. It is conceivable to me that the Confederacy could be persuaded to give up its collective share of northern installations in return for southern installations.
On second thought, belay that. If the southern states secede, it would more likely be argued that they should pay the northern states for their share of the ceded installations.
Now. If my memory hasn't failed, didn't the CSA try to offer to do just exactly that? Negotiate a share of the national debt, monies owed northern interests, and compensation for siezed forts and properties?
ole
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, which is why South Carolina tried to 'purchase' Fort Sumter from the federal government, because they realized that hey technically the US government has a solid legal claim to the island and we want to try and handle it the best way, which is through purchase rather than conquest.
If South Carolina chooses to not be a part of the US, then they lose the benefits of being a part of the US. Including things they gave up complete ownership of...Fort Sumter. Look at South Carolina's bill, they give up all legal rights to the man-made island to the US government not US citizens. I really think that Fort Sumter was clearly US property, however, I would want the fort back if I was a South Carolinian back then to.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Lincoln, Taney & Secession 
Linear Mode
