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 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.
You would be wrong about that. The Declaration of Independence is an appeal to the "natural right of revolution", a concept that the Founding Fathers were very familiar with. They did not consider that they had any right at all under their legal system to separate from Britain, and expected to be hung or worse if their revolution failed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
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.
What they laid claim to was the "natural right of revolution", a concept outside of British law. That is why Ben Franklin told them as they signed the Declaration of Independence that "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". They understood that what they were doing was clearly illegal, and what the penalty for it was.
None of what you are referring to here is equivalent to a legal "right of secession".
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
However, it appears that those in power within the federal government of 1860-61, did not believe in either.
False.
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.
Excellent, to claim legal right, the revolutionaries must obviously claim a natural right.
I can't take a lot of credit for it; the relationship of the Declaration of Independence to the "natural right of revolution has been recognized for over 200 years and widely discussed. Abraham Lincoln recognized it, as did Thomas Paine and many others. I probably heard about it first in my Philosophy of Law course in college, if not earlier.
Here's one view, from The History of the Civil War in America by John Stevens Cabot Abbott, 1863:
=====
THE slaveholders' doctrine of secession, which was got up merely to serve a temporary purpose, is the most insane idea ever cherished outside of a mad-house. That there is a natural right of revolution, no one denies. But that there is a right, under the law, for the state to secede from the nation, involving the right of the county to secede from the state, and the town from the county, and the individual from the town, is a sentiment too absurd for respectful consideration. Nothing but the audacity which slavery engenders would embolden a man to utter it. "When England consents to the secession of the county of Kent, taking with it the mouth of the Thames, and France assents to the secession of the province of Lamanche, taking with it the fortresses of Cherbourg, to be ceded at pleasure to England or Russia, then may American statesmen begin to consider the question, whether 376,913 free whites, scattered over the sugar and cotton plantations of Louisiana, may secede from the United States, take with them the mouths of a river which open to an internal navigation of more than 50,000 miles, along majestic streams where hundreds of millions are soon to dwell. According to this doctrine, Fortress Monroe belongs to Virginia, the immense National works at Newport to the little State of Rhode Island, which she can take possession of at any time and cedo to England with herself as a naval depot. The vast fortifications at Key West and the Tortugas, reared at an enormous National expense, to protect our limitless commerce in the Gulf, belong to the petty State of Florida, with not 80,000 white inhabitants, and whose naval marine consists of scarcely a dozen fishing smacks. Cherbourg, in France, the wonder of the world, upon this theory, belongs not to the Empire, but to Lamanche ; England's great naval depot, at Portsmouth, belongs not to the kingdom, but to the county of Hants. What reply would England make, should that county revolt, and remonstrating against " subjugation," say that all that she wanted was to be " let alone."
=====
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.
One example of acceptance of the "right of revolution" are the several quotes of Lincoln in which he acknowledged its rightful existence. What is overlooked in the quotes is the modifier: "having the power." Or "can."
If you believe it is a God-given right, hang on. If you reject the God part and want to call it natural, we're still on the same page. But allow me to call it a God-given right just for the sake of the argument: God said, "You have the right to fight for what you want for yourself." And then he goes away to do something else. The rest is up to you.
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
One example of acceptance of the "right of revolution" are the several quotes of Lincoln in which he acknowledged its rightful existence. What is overlooked in the quotes is the modifier: "having the power." Or "can."
If you believe it is a God-given right, hang on. If you reject the God part and want to call it natural, we're still on the same page. But allow me to call it a God-given right just for the sake of the argument: God said, "You have the right to fight for what you want for yourself." And then he goes away to do something else. The rest is up to you.
Ole,
Most discussion of "natural rights" theory starts with the Dutch genius Grotius in the early 1600s and runs forward through men like Locke, Jefferson, Franklin, Rousseau and others. It was common fare among Americans in the day before the Civil War, including Lincoln and Madison. It was, essentially, the concept that the United States of America was founded on.
The "natural right of revolution" is essentially trial by combat, the "right" to fight for what you believe. It was, however, regarded as a limited right: it was considered wrong to exercise it when the benefit to be expected was not worth the damage inflicted. This seems to have been particularly important to, among others, some West Point-trained officers. As a result, they seem to have felt those who "went South" could only be justified if the revolution/rebellion the South attempted had a good chance of success. In the post-war writings about the struggle, you can find several ex-Confederate officers arguing that the Confederacy stood a good chance of success in the war, and this need to justify their own acts seems to be a sub-text to it. For example, if you look through Longstreet's memoir you'll find a long passage on how good their chances were.
To these men, it was important that the Confederacy had a good chance in the beginning, so they had to find reasons the war was lost. They generally cannot come down on the side of Union victory being inevitable, because that would put their own actions in the wrong in their own judgement.
This is also a meaning to Lincoln's "having the power" statement. You have the right to revolution, but it is wrong to revolt if you know in advance that you must lose, and only useless destruction will result.
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.
Hmmm, did they write down their reasons? They did, and 'slavery' is written all over those reasons.
Is slavery the reason the North would not allow the South to govern themselves? Is slavery the reason Lincoln opposed secession (well, at least secession that didn't go his way)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
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.
Quote:
Trice: You would be wrong about that. The Declaration of Independence is an appeal to the "natural right of revolution", a concept that the Founding Fathers were very familiar with. They did not consider that they had any right at all under their legal system to separate from Britain, and expected to be hung or worse if their revolution failed.
I would be right about that. You would be wrong about that.
Show me the term "natural right of revolution" or "right of secession" in the Declaration of Independence.
They laid claim to the inalienable right to govern themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
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.
Quote:
Tirce: What they laid claim to was the "natural right of revolution", a concept outside of British law.
Once again, there is no such term in the declaration.
But there is direct reference to their claim of their inalienable right to self-government.
Quote:
Trice: That is why Ben Franklin told them as they signed the Declaration of Independence that "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". They understood that what they were doing was clearly illegal, and what the penalty for it was.
None of what you are referring to here is equivalent to a legal "right of secession".
They understood that they were claiming rights endowed upon them by their Creator, not by King George. They also realized that King George would not give up his profitable claim to the colonies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawglips
However, it appears that those in power within the federal government of 1860-61, did not believe in either.
Quote:
Trice: False.
Either they believed in it, or they did not. Their actions speak loudly.
Tim, do you believe in the right of self-government, and the right to alter or abolish one's form of government? Or do you not?
The south was allowed to govern themselves, as long as they governed under the Constitution of the United States of America and obeyed the laws and regulations of the United States Gov't.
Lincoln (and the north) rejected the idea that the south could ever govern itself outside the Constitution, by Any Unilateral action on its (the south's) part.
Since the south seceded to preserve slavery and secession caused the CW, then yes, slavery was indeed The Reason.
All very logical And Historical at the same time; an unfortunate combination for the south.
The south was allowed to govern themselves, as long as they governed under the Constitution of the United States of America and obeyed the laws and regulations of the United States Gov't.
Lincoln (and the north) rejected the idea that the south could ever govern itself outside the Constitution, by Any Unilateral action on its (the south's) part.
King George rejected the idea that his colonies' could ever govern themselves outside of the Empire. They had their own legislative bodies. I guess he figured that was good enough.
Quote:
Since the south seceded to preserve slavery and secession caused the CW, then yes, slavery was indeed The Reason.
All very logical And Historical at the same time; an unfortunate combination for the south.
Slavey had nothing to do with the onset of war. Secession was peaceful. The opposition to it (i.e., Nothern non-belief in the right to self-government) was The Reason.
I would be right about that. You would be wrong about that.
Show me the term "natural right of revolution" or "right of secession" in the Declaration of Independence.
They laid claim to the inalienable right to govern themselves.
Sorry hawg, but I do think you are wrong. Jefferson clearly states in the Declaration that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends [the right to govern themselves], it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government..." He then goes on to say a few sentences later that when the former government effects to reduce a people to despotism, that it is "their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government..." That would what is called a "revolution", which Jefferson is saying the people have the right to. When the United States did this, what was it called? The American Revolution. When the French did the same thing, what was it called? The French Revolution. One does not have to say the exact words for something to be implied in a document. The whole purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to state the purpose that the colonies were breaking away and their right to do so. Therefore, it is stating the right of the colonies to change their government. I mean, the definition of revolution is: a sudden, radical, or complete change; a fundemental change in political organization; esp: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed. Its quite obvious in the Declaration. Jefferson is clearly stating that the colonies have a right to revolution.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
