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.
Actually CW 1865, most of the southrons on this thread, argue from the crisis at Ft. Sumter, but make no arguments about the cause of the crisis in the first place. Merely arguing that every action of the Federal Gov't (even by that dough face, Buchanan) and Unionists at Charleston as being provocative, but never really stating why those actions were provocative. They seem to equate SC anger and outrage, as proof that their anger and outrage was justified.
From the Federal Gov'ts viewpoint there was no cause for conflict, concerning Federal Officers and officials going about their business as they had always done since the Constitution was in force. Those actions only became provoctative, because SC considered themselves out of the Union and not bound by any US laws, regulations or Constitution.
The fact that most South Carolinians considered themselves out of the Union, did not affect the fact that they were Not out the Union according to the Constitution and the Federal Gov't.
The source of Federal provocations, was SC considering itself out of the Union.
Well, basically what you were saying is that secession is illegal hence Feds can do whatever is necessary and proper to enforce Federal law. And actually I agree with you, the Feds clearly have the power to enforce Federal law, BUT when we scrutinize Southern intentions/actions, etc. we have to look at those actions and determine whether those actions are logical and consistent with their assertion that secession is legal. And frankly, they are and I don't find the siezure of Federal facilities ostensibly created for purposes of benefitting the local citizenry as being particularly provocative; I would even say that you would have to be a complete idiot NOT to seize them. That being said, I really don't find the Federal actions to be particularly provocative either and their actions are also logical and consistent with the position of the Federal Government.
Ultimately one side was going to have to back down and obviously neither did.
The agitation at Charleston over Ft. Sumter was all from the SC side. Federal Officials (as opposed to northern civilians) were always responding to and trying to reassure the outraged feelings of Charlestonians, even to the point of not enforcing all laws and regulations, in a vain hope of calming the inflamed sensibilities of those who considered themselves outside the Union and its laws. Where any and all attempts of Federal Officers and Officials to carry out their duties was seen as threats to those who concieved themselves independent, even though their only justification was their assumption that they were out of the Union.
The South (and SC) was justifying thei secession by appealing to an 'inherent right' (the existence of which,was disputed) that was claimed to exist 'outside' the Constitution.
Again, the agitation, fear and outrage emanated from SC BECAUSE the Federal Gov't refused to accept that they were, in fact, out of Union.
I think the 13 colonies' orchestrated reaction to the British crown was very appropriate.
Irrelevant.
Floyd was outraged because he'd gotten caught up in a dimb mistake. Buchanan was outraged because the boil he'd been trying to avoid came to a head. South Carolina was enraged because their plans were upset--with a little bit of agitation from fire-eater-owned newspapers. Fire-eaters in other southern states feigned outrage and gleefully siezed on the opportunity as an excuse to do what they had been planning to do.
No siezures were in reaction to the move--it just provided the excuse.
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
Either one believes in government by consent of the governed, or one does not.
Quote:
Floyd was outraged because he'd gotten caught up in a dimb mistake. Buchanan was outraged because the boil he'd been trying to avoid came to a head. South Carolina was enraged because their plans were upset--with a little bit of agitation from fire-eater-owned newspapers. Fire-eaters in other southern states feigned outrage and gleefully siezed on the opportunity as an excuse to do what they had been planning to do.
And the "peaceably if we can" approach was in place prior to the move. But as long as SC believed it their inalienable right to govern themselves -- and as long as the federal government took it upon themselves to deny them that right -- then we have an impasse.
Quote:
No siezures were in reaction to the move--it just provided the excuse.
ole
Sorta like Sumter being just the excuse Lincoln was looking for to invade the South "to collect the duties and imposts" and "to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government"?
It all boils down to two questions.
Either "governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," or they derive their powers from themselves.
And either "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness," or it is not their right.
And the "peaceably if we can" approach was in place prior to the move. But as long as SC believed it their inalienable right to govern themselves -- and as long as the federal government took it upon themselves to deny them that right -- then we have an impasse.
Sorta like Sumter being just the excuse Lincoln was looking for to invade the South "to collect the duties and imposts" and "to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government"?
It all boils down to two questions.
Either "governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," or they derive their powers from elsewhere.
And either "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness," or it is not their right.
1) Yes, Lincoln justified his actions by the violent assault the Confederates had launched on Fort Sumter.
2) The American Revolution is an example of the "natural right of revolution", which is essentially trial by combat. It is not an example of a hypothetical legal "right of secession". Which one is it you are trying to lay a claim for here?
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 American Revolution is an example of the "natural right of revolution", which is essentially trial by combat. It is not an example of a hypothetical legal "right of secession". Which one is it you are trying to lay a claim for here?
Regards,
Tim
I have never read the term "natural right of revolution" or the "right of secession" in the Declaration of Independence of 1776, so I think they laid claim to neither.
What they laid claim to, and what you and I either believe in, or we do not -- is the right of self-government, and the right to alter or abolish one's form of government.
I believe in both. South Carolina did also in 1860. As did each of the original 13 colonies that signed that declaration sent to King George.
However, it appears that those in power within the federal government of 1860-61, did not believe in either.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Hmmm, did they write down their reasons? They did, and 'slavery' is written all over those reasons.
Ultimately the problem with a right of secession is that if it can be exercised in 1860, it could've been exercised in 1812, 1933, 1943 or even today. What would you say, today, if the Federal Government decided to end farm subsidies and in response a swathe of states from Texas to ND, including Iowa, the bread basket of the US, decided to secede and to replace the subsidies enacted a $150 entry/exit tax? It would sever the US in half and make interstate commerce more expensive; making it virtually impossible for private passenger cars to go from NY to CA
And That was Just the Preamble.
One should read the rest of it, while they are at it and compare the reasons for revolution in 1776, compared to those of the south of 1860.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
