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.
Would you explain the decades of discussion and threats of secession, and what fostered that attitude?
What decades of threats of secession? The first actual threat from a state came in the 1830s during the Nullification Crisis, in which South Carolina threatened to secede.
Andrew Jackson responded strongly, saying clearly such an action would be unconstitutional and that he would put it down with force. That ended that.
In the 1840s, a couple of Northern politicians floated the idea over Texas' admission, but they had zero support.
In the 1850s, various southerners threatened secession over the slavery issue.
Some refer to the Hartford Convention as threatening secession. It did no such thing. That was the claim of the political enemies of the Federalists, and that claim hastened the demise of the Federalist Party. The idea of even discussing secession was politically unpopular in the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clara_barton
Orestes Brownson, some would think the greatest thinker of the 19th century,
Who? You've got to be joking, right? A greater thinker than James Madison? James Kent? John Stuart Mill? William James? Thoreau? Please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clara_barton
held for decades the 'right of secession', and published numerous articles supporting it.
Not that I doubt you. I believe you. But can you point to some of these articles so I can see what he based it on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by clara_barton
His roots were New England. It was not until the late 1850's that he reversed his opinion.
What office did he hold? What constituency did he have? How many followers supported his view? What state action followed his writing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by clara_barton
Cash, what led to the continued debates and threats of the secession?
Wish I could say that statement was mine, but I can't. I should have put it in quotes. It was Larry_Cockerman in the prior post. Thanks, Larry. You and Grant see it the same way.
Thanks for the clarification, Clara, just wasn't reading well at the time.
However, it is not wise to praise Larry overmuch. He tends to roll over and want his belly scratched.
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
My main question: is secession considered revolution? If secession is considered revolution can anyone find a source that says a people/state cannot overthrow an unjust government by revolution?
Even in overthrowing a government, said government would not have only the right, but the obligation to defend itself against the overthrow. However, in secession they are not replacing a government with their own. They are forming their own government within the confines of territory that already belongs to the previous government. Logic dictates that the federal government owns the land before the state, and if any state government wants out it has to be voted out by the majority of the american people, not just by one state. By seceding with a local vote, they are merely bypassing the constitution for their own purposes. What good is a constitution if any state at any time can say "we don't like you anymore,we are outta here!"? Wouldn't the president be within his power to force the state back into place? Of course he is. Its called executive power. It is his expressed right in the constitution. If the president allows this to happen, then anytime a specific body of peoples doesn't like the results of any election, they could just up and leave, thus taking away the power of the popular vote. The constitution calls for a vote, and the minority is obligated to abide by what the majority decides, or a democracy has no power.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Sometimes you'll see some internet charlatans quote this portion of John Quincy Adams' speech on the Jubilee of the Constitution:
"The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several States of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other, the bonds of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attached by the magnetism of consolidated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship with each other than to be held together by constraint."
But they ignore this portion, which comes before:
"In the calm hours of self-possession, the right of a State to nullify an act of Congress, is too absurd for argument, and too odious for discussion. The right of a state to secede from the Union, is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Nations acknowledge no judge between them upon earth, and their Governments from necessity, must in their intercourse with each other decide when the failure of one party to a contract to perform its obligations, absolves the other from the reciprocal fulfilment of his own. But this last of earthly powers is not necessary to the freedom or independence of states, connected together by the immediate action of the people, of whom they consist. To the people alone is there reserved, as well the dissolving, as the constituent power, and that power can be exercised by them only under the tie of conscience, binding them to the retributive justice of Heaven."
So what are we to make of these two portions?
A state that is going to secede from the Union must have the consent of the other states. Adams says that he would give such consent, but he clearly says that there is no right of unilateral secession.
The Declaration of Independence ceased to be in force after the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781 and later when the U. S. Constitution was ratified in 1789.
The Articles of this Confederation forbid secession, unless all of the states agreed to it.
"Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
Secession became "illegal" in the North...
...when it cost them money.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
