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.
Resolutions: Use of Force Against a "Delinquent" State Not Adopted
"The last clause of the sixth resolution, authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole against a delinquent state, came next into consideration.
Mr. Madison, observed, that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy of it, when applied to people collectively and not individually. A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to, nem. con. [without dissent]"
Debates in the Federal Convention, p.140
Here, again, I have to agree.
The ponderous tome of arguments presented by Cash seem to bend our founding fathers to the left, in their
views, at certain times...
(And let me qualify that! Federalist-Whig-Liberal is the proper declension for this train of thought and tendencies toward empire on the part of government).
Yet they can never have Jefferson, nor Henry. Madison, apparently and originally a Federalist Liberal consolidationalist in thought, is said to have been steered back on course in later times.
Don't know the particulars on that yet.
Washington was a military man, and one of the reasons why Lee would later think he was not to want to take a political office of his own, being military-oriented.
Yet, the best men in our country at the time of Lincoln's
effect on the nation all went South, citing the Constitution and preparing, basically, a polished and revised version of it for their own use, in the Confederate Constitution.
One not so vague as to be seen as unclear by the North, nor anyone in the South.
I cannot help but notice that the South is not ever accused of misreading the Constitution, but rather, of failing to comply with the Northerner's new plan to rid the nation of black people, via colonization and abolition of the slavery practice.
It seems that too many other people who were not Southern Confederates nor Northern sympathizers ALSO had misread the document, and its intended intent.
Easier to claim a racist thing, I suppose, than to write such volumes as to why the founding fathers refused to write one word of clearly-stated NO ONE LEAVES in the finished document!
Remember, you are talking to the Third Story, here, not one of the two sides. I can step out of my Southern-ness for a few moments, and have an out-of-body experience, to see what is happening. Am anxiously waiting for you to step out of your Southern-ness for a few moments. So far, I haven't seen it.
So, in light of this, kindly tell me the difference between Old England and New England. What, exactly, did we get so upset over, in the first place? That is a Revolutionary War discussion and essentially off-topic except as it directly relates to the Civil War.
I am a Celtic Southron, much hated and despised, historically, by the Anglo-Saxons (Londoners) who first did us in during the days of BRAVEHEART, and then again, under the same Rebel X of the Scots (white on a blue field), as Confederates (under that same flag, as a red, white and blue flag with stars)! And I'm an American of Norwegian heritage. Does that mean I harbor ancient urges to sail across the North Sea to kick the stuffing out of those island sissies?
You can see what I have been taught, and you are less than generous if you can hold it against me that I do not believe as you do! Yes. We can see what you have been taught. All I want to see is what you have learned after you got past the point where you were being told tales.
We have never seceded from you, because we never were you! And until you get over the us/them snag, your questions cannot be answered. We're talking actual history; not feelings.
Balance and snippets of quote deleted as extraneous irrelevancies, and to save space.
Final off-topic comment. Once you've caught up on your reading, you will note that most posters do not hold that every Confederate soldier fought for slavery -- not even most. Slavery was the basis for secession, and secession was the basis for an impending war. Every soldier, on both sides, had his own reason for fighting in the war.
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 cannot help but notice that the South is not ever accused of misreading the Constitution, but rather, of failing to comply with the Northerner's new plan to rid the nation of black people, via colonization and abolition of the slavery practice.
if you expect to be taken seriously, making outrageous, unfounded statements is not the way to do it.
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
So far, Beowulf has not provided any information that tends to support the subject of this particular thread: except personal opinion.
That Beowulf is a southern, conservative, clans-man does in fact identify him, But it establishes no particular credibility to any of his 'thoughts'
Others on this board had established that Secession was Not Ever viewed as a right, most especially by the Framers of the Constitution.
Historically, Jefferson believed he nad no Constitutional authority to purchase the Louisiana Territory, but being a souther, he did not let that stop him from doingf what he felt was best for the country (not just Va.)
The Historical Fact is, all attempts by individuals, cities, counties or states to separate themselves from the Union were always resisted by the leaders of the National Gov't and the majority the citizens and states of the Union, From Washington's time through Buchanan to Lincoln and during that time most of the Presidents were southerners (many of the most vehement opposition to such attempts were by Presidents from the south).
In Constitutional terms and the historical record of the United States or the National Gov't, there is little or no evidence that Secession was ever viewed as a right (except as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States of America).
I'm still looking for any evidence that secession was either a right or a power that any part of any international country actually enjoyed. It's often said that, because the Constitution didn't mention secession as a Federal power, it was a power or right reserved to the states. But was it? Where in civilized history is secession considered a power or right? Don't bother to bring up separations where both parties agreed.)
The natural right of self-defense and rebellion were and are well understood and accepted. I haven't yet seen evidence that secession is included among them.
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
So far, Beowulf has not provided any information that tends to support the subject of this particular thread: except personal opinion.
That Beowulf is a southern, conservative, clans-man does in fact identify him, But it establishes no particular credibility to any of his 'thoughts'
Others on this board had established that Secession was Not Ever viewed as a right, most especially by the Framers of the Constitution.
Historically, Jefferson believed he nad no Constitutional authority to purchase the Louisiana Territory, but being a souther, he did not let that stop him from doingf what he felt was best for the country (not just Va.)
The Historical Fact is, all attempts by individuals, cities, counties or states to separate themselves from the Union were always resisted by the leaders of the National Gov't and the majority the citizens and states of the Union, From Washington's time through Buchanan to Lincoln and during that time most of the Presidents were southerners (many of the most vehement opposition to such attempts were by Presidents from the south).
In Constitutional terms and the historical record of the United States or the National Gov't, there is little or no evidence that Secession was ever viewed as a right (except as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States of America).
Do you not agree that what Jefferson did was right for the country? From my understanding of things, the Northern
states were complaining that this purchase would bring Slave states (their word for Conservatives) into the majority, and that thus hinder them from an eventual annexing of the government through their (blue state) party politics. The same as with the South and the Westward expansion, later... a threat to secede.
But to the Blue Staters, Jefferson said, "Depart as friends and brothers"...
Lincoln, of course, later, has no such conciliatory nature about him. As a sectional president, he has no need for the Constitution, save when it pleases him to read between its lines... and create War Powers out of thin air! Strain at gnats and swallow camels!
The Constitution does not have to allow Jefferson to purchase anything. If it did, he would not have done so
without the proper channels.
He is doing a service to his country, by controlling a waterway, the Mississippi River from both sides.
The very fact that there is so much opposition, even here, to your forced Union, is evidence that there is no consensus upon it, now or then...
So while the South cannot prove a right, you cannot prove a wrong with what you bring to the table. There are two sides here, rushing towards each other, and never quite getting together for a decisive strike.
Stalemate. Do you see it otherwise?
Seems to me, the North did not want a Union; it wanted control.
if you expect to be taken seriously, making outrageous, unfounded statements is not the way to do it.
ole
Then I must be wrong about the Colonizationalists like Lincoln, and the Radical Republicans, and their desires to keep the West lilly-white by refusing to want to allow
either freed blacks or Conservative voting slave-owners access to these areas
for settlement. In doing so, they assure the purity of the
white race in these areas? (and, of course, a majority of voting power in Congress).
"Seems to me the North did not want a Union; it wanted control."
And I am of the opinion the South wanted to maintain its own control of the federal government, which it had done for over seventy years prior to the war, for the sole purpose of defending and protecting slavery.
When it could no longer do so by means of a fair election, it took the untested, untried and most dangerous of routes in hopes of disguising a full-out rebellion.
Unilateral Secession.
A theory that was always debated and never looked upon by the majority of the American people nor its leaders as a 'right' always taken for granted.
Hence that little dust-up we call the Civil War.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Probably not. Many (and I'll not list them for the certainty that I'll leave some out) know a great deal more than I do.
You're obviously well-versed in the League of the South version of history. I'm acquainted with it only in the frequent use of hyperbole and half-truth pretentions toward fact.
Thus, the idea that all politicos find it in their best interest to gain legislative power becomes a Republican power grab and an attempt to keep the territories lily-white. It is such hyperbole that detracts from your position and distracts from the subject at hand.
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
Jefferson passed himself off as a strict constructionist of the Constitution, but when an opportunity to stretch the Constitution to favor a pet project (acquiring western lands), Jefferson was first in a line of all the other Presidents in our history.
Well IF, the north protested the stretching of the authority of the Constitution because of slavery, then by that logic, Jefferson and the supporters of his questionable actions (by his own views) did it to further the aims of the pro-slavers in the south. Even, IF true such a view only proves that slavery was the motive force for the social and geographical division within the Union itself.
Since Beowulf admits that there was no concensus and yet it was done, it really leaves little room to protest if the south tried another act with no concensus to support it, and it was NOT done.
Contrary to accepted wisdom from Di Lorenzo, The south was perfectly willing to trample on the Civil Rights of the Northern States and it's individual citizens in the name of protecting their (the south's) slaves, but when the south thought its slaves were no longer safe under the Constitution, they did not even think twice about trying to take their slaves and go home. such thinking may work with 10 year olds in a marble game, but something more substantive is required from those who purport themselves to be adults, when things don't go their way.
P.S. Beowulf, you do know what courts are for, don't you?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
I have to agree. 
Linear Mode
