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.
Now, if you can, please provide proof, actual proof, that three fourths of the federal revenue from tariffs are expended at the North. Period sources and documents would be appreciated.
Unionblue[/quote]
Let me get back to you. I'll be out of town for a couple days, and away from the iMac. Want to run this by some of my
boys. Thanks for the work!
Perhaps we should attempt to return to the proper threads which concern tariffs, black confederate soldiers, etc., and get this thread back on track, i.e.,
was secession always viewed as a right?
Sincerely,
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
secession was a unilateral act of the Confederate States, a power not given by the U.S. Constitution to a state or states, that was unilaterally treated as insurrection by the U.S. Congress and President Lincoln, a right given to the Congress -
Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power to ...suppress Insurrections.
Apparently...Whigworth's idea of insurrection...and the idea the framers of the Constitution had are two very different matters:
Virginia's ratification (first section):
"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will..."
Leader of Virginia's ratification and voting Aye:
James Madison...aka "Father of the Constitution"
__________________ 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."
the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will..."
Note: "the people of the United States." Not the people of a state. If the people of the United States as a whole, acting through the mechanisms of the Constitution, dissolve the Federal Government, then so be it. But a bare majority of the residents of a single area, acting independently, do not have the right or the power to dissolve the federal union.
Can I and my family take a vote around the dinner table this evening and vote to seceed from the United States and from the State of Texas and set up an independant nation consisting of my house? Opt out of the laws of the United States? Set up machine-gun towers at the corners of my property?
By this argument, then any group of people, even though not an entire state can elect to remove themselves and their property from the United States at any time. The result? Anarchy. (Although having California or Massachusetts remove themselves from the Union may not be such a bad idea).
Personally, I do not want to see those wackos out in Eldorado, Texas (bigamists who are marrying minors) proclaim themselves to be a separate country, arm themselves, and then say that the government does not have the right to cross into their "country" to aprehend those wanted for state and federal crimes because they have voted themselves outside the jurisdiction of the government.
Note: "the people of the United States." Not the people of a state.
Last I checked the 'people of Virginia' or 'people of Georgia' etc, are also 'people of the United States.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by timew
If the people of the United States as a whole, acting through the mechanisms of the Constitution, dissolve the Federal Government, then so be it. But a bare majority of the residents of a single area, acting independently, do not have the right or the power to dissolve the federal union.
It does not say "by the mechanisms of the Constitution" but...at their will.
The sovereign powers were delegated to the Federal government by the States...therefore it can only be resumed by the States.
Key Word- Resume:
"to take or assume use or practice of again"
"to take back"
Who held the sovereign powers originally- the States.
__________________ 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."
The 'exact' status of Free Blacks in America before the CW was still under debate and as even Beowulf would admit it was up to the states to make that deciksion.
Before Taney negated the clear intent of the DoI and the Constitution in 1857 the Free Blacks had some right and a chance to find redress in the legal system of the Unit States.
Beowulf may not necessarily agree with the law but he is willing to accept it as law i.e, he does not feel compelled to threaten or actually leave the Union over it.
The ground swell of protest that the slave law engendered was channeled into civil protest (not directed to withdrawing from the Union) while agitating for a change (or elimination) of the offending legislation.
Too bad Beowulf was not there at the Democratic Convention in 1860 to council following the Constitution and work thrugh the political process as established, instead of a generating a power move to provoke a revolution (secession) or perhaps, his calm perception would have warned the SC hotheads, that Firing on a Federal Fort and it's military personnel, 'Might' not be a wise or judicious course of action under any circumstances.
The outrage of a minority slaveowning oligarchy trying to protect their slaves from a percieved threat, was equally matched by a much greater majority of northen citizens, equally outraged by their perception of a direct attack on their civil liberties. The main difference being; the outraged northerners were bound to work within the system to gain redress, while the south bound themselves to work outside the system and secede.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timewalker
Note: "the people of the United States." Not the people of a state.
Last I checked the 'people of Virginia' or 'people of Georgia' etc, are also 'people of the United States.'
Gotta go with timewalker. The people of a state are a subset of the people of the United States. The people of a state were intended to run the geographical and economic peculiarities of a state -- something recognized to be beyond the capability of a national body. The people of the whole nation were intended to run the nation through agents nominated or elected by states to represent them. When it comes to constitutional redress, it is the people of all the states who are empowered to decide.
Quote:
It does not say "by the mechanisms of the Constitution" but...at their will.
And the Constitution clearly outlines the mechanism by which all the people can exercise their will.
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
Last I checked the 'people of Virginia' or 'people of Georgia' etc, are also 'people of the United States.'
They are part of the people of the United States, but they are not the whole of the people of the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
The sovereign powers were delegated to the Federal government by the States...therefore it can only be resumed by the States.
Perhaps you should read the preamble again: "We thePeople, of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." Not "We theseveral states of the United States..." The sovereign powers were delegated to the federal government by the people, not the states. It is basic American political theory that power derives from the people, not from the states. Therefore, only the people could create the federal goverment, not the several states. In order to dissolve that Union, it required the action of all of the people, not some subset thereof. And since the power was given by the people to the government in perpetuity in ratifying and adopting the Constitution, it is only through the mechanisms of the Constitution that it could be withdrawn.
So said the Supreme Court as set forth ad nauseum earlier in the thread.
It has nothing to do with DiLorenzo, the Georgia Declaration of Causes or the Schedule Cs of 1846 or 1861.
Cash made these statements:
"The tariff was applied to goods and materials most southerners didn't use.
The tariff only affects certain goods, most of which southerners didn't use."
To which I replied with a list of goods that Southerners used in great abundance- clothes, shoes, iron -with a tariff of 24%.
As incompetent an analysis as always. They didn't use imported clothing. They didn't use imported shoes. They didn't use imported iron. The tariff didn't apply to the vast majority of the items they actually used.
From this vote it is clear whose interest was at stake-
Morrill Tariff vote
House of Representatives
1860
....................................Yea...Nay
New England......................27- 0......(ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI)
Northeast..........................43- 2......(NY, NJ, PA)
Midwest............................26-12......(OH, IN, IL, IA, MI, MN, WI)
Border................................7-10......(DE, MD, KY, MO) South................................1-39......(11 to-be Confederate States)
Far West.............................0- 1.......(California, Oregon)
Total...............................104-64
The typical incompetent historical nonanalysis we've all come to expect. Do you think there was possibly anything different about the year 1860 than, say, 1840, or 1850, or even 1855?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
