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.
The problem really, to me -- is a no win situation.
Those who wanted to pursue 'secession' would injure those who did not; and vice versa. Without compromise; there isn't much of a solution. How can there be winners to both sides? There couldn't. So, who has the 'right' to determine who is to loose or win. Thus--the Civil War; as there was nobody really; to be the final 'judge and jury' of who would win or loose in the contest, until it was concluded.
In some cases -- everybody (North, South, East, West, free and non-free, rich, poor and all in between)lost four years and some.
But, for me--what is the sad part; is that people still judge people in the former Confederate states as being as guilty now, as those during the Civil War; just by state association and or prejudices based on assumptions. Today's "South" is not yester-year's "South."
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
The problem for many sincere southerners, is that beyond praising the courage and endurance of the people of the south. It is so difficult (as to be almost impossible) to defend secession, without, at the same time, defending the cause for which it was designed.
As proved on many boards, including this one, by how even the most vehement of defenders, of the south's participation in the war, are even more vehement in trying to separate secession from the 'peculiar institution' in the south. like trying to separate the two faces of a coin.
Thus, except for ardent revisionists and neo-confederates, it is usually better to concentrate on the battles and actual historical events of the war itself.
The problem for many sincere southerners, is that beyond praising the courage and endurance of the people of the south. It is so difficult (as to be almost impossible) to defend secession, without, at the same time, defending the cause for which it was designed...
I had a friend once who drove tanks during the cold war.
For the Russkies.
He was a great guy and we got along very well. You could tell, however, that he was very sensitive about some things like whether the T-72's autoloader actually did stuff gunners into the breech occasionally, or about the limitations and failings of Soviet socialism.
When cornered he would repeat the party lines about the "peace lubbing pipples of da Sobiet Oonyun."
Once you got to know him and he realized you weren't trying to browbeat him, you got to hear some really fascinating stuff. You could also see a mixture of sadness and pride in his expression. He was in the peculiar position of being proud of who he was (as he should be) and what he had done (ditto) and very sad that the regime was vilified and ridiculed. It was a perfectly reasonable sentiment. I never faulted him for either emotion and maybe that's why we got along.
I rather suspect the first generation or two after the Civil War was the same way, but by now I also suspect that the 3rd and later generations grew up hearing these stories and knowing nothing of the true pain involved, accept them at face value. To examine them in depth - to know them in their fullness - would bring back that pain, and it's much easier to blame someone else for woes - real or imagined, past or present - than to accept the fullness of truth.
Last edited by Baggage Handler #2; 09-13-2008 at 11:29 AM.
I would imagine that folks like that guy, in the Civil War, are how we get the veterans themselves being able to return home and rebuild a stronger and greater country, but the neo-Confederates (defined as the crowd saying "The South shall rise again!" and similiar) are...well...
I'll just say this.
I would be honored to shake Lee's hand. Even if not all he is said to have been, he was a remarkable man.
I have trouble being civil towards Tory at times.
__________________ Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just. - Abraham Lincoln
The South had every right to secede.
When the different colonies signed a peace treaty with Britian it was signed with the seperate colonies and when we formed the United States they adopted the Articles of Confederation. In the Articles of Confederation there was a clause that the union would be perpetual. When adopting the Constitution the point was brought up and voted on but it did not pass and that is why it is not in the Constitution.
It was a clear fact up until the war and only argued against by the radical republicans because it benefited them at the time.
John Quincy Adams a president and union man in a 1839 speech wrote:"dissolving that which can no longer bind, we would have to leave the seperated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center".
The Massachusetts constitution: "The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state". And you will remember Massachusetts threated to secede twice, once with all New England. William Rawle from Pennsylvania wrote a book in 1825 called A View of the Constitution" which explained in no uncertain terms of the right of secession. He was an instructor at West Point where he taught Constitutional Law. He was also a friend of both George Washington and Ben Franklin.
Horace Greeley in the New York Tribune on November 8, 1860 wrote: " We must ever resist the asserted right of any state to remain in the Union and nullify or defy the laws thereof. To withdraw from the Union is quite another matter, and whenever a considerable section of our Union shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep it in. We hope never to live an a republic whereof one section is pinned to the rsidue by bayonets.
A union is not a union when part of that union is forced to stay against its will.
If secession was unconstitutional then why did they not put Jefferson Davis and others on trial? because president Johnson was informed by Chief Justice Salmon Chase that the government would lose because nothing in the Constitution forbids secession.
It's a tall request, jreb, but everything you've claimed has already been discussed on this and other threads -- please read as much of posts as you can. (Pay particular attention to those with which you disagree.)
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
The South had every right to secede. When the different colonies signed a peace treaty with Britian it was signed with the seperate colonies and when we formed the United States they adopted the Articles of Confederation. In the Articles of Confederation there was a clause that the union would be perpetual. When adopting the Constitution the point was brought up and voted on but it did not pass and that is why it is not in the Constitution.
The Treaty of Paris 1783 was signed by three delegates representing and negotiated for the United States of America. There were not 13 representatives, one for each state, at the Paris negotiating and signing. It was ratified by the Congress of the Confederation, the national government, and not by the 13 individual states. The reason that "perpetual" was not in the Constitution was it was felt that it was understood, as in "a more perfect union."
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
I am afraid history is at odds with your assumption. There was that little event we call the Civil War that contested the idea that the South had a right to UNILATERAL secession.
When the different colonies signed a peace treaty with Britian it was signed with the seperate colonies
No, Britian did NOT sign a peace treaty with 13 separate colonies or else there would have been 13 representatives there or at least 13 different foreign embassies. But Freddy in his above post has already addressed this part of your post better than I.
and when we formed the United States they adopted the Articles of Confederation. In the Articles of Confederation there was a clause that the union would be perpetual.
I do not see how this aids your contention about secession.
When adopting the Constitution the point was brought up and voted on but it did not pass and that is why it is not in the Constitution.
I think you are over simplifying the matter somewhat. Could you please explain exactly what was vote on but did not pass and what is not in the Constitution?
It was a clear fact up until the war and only argued against by the radical republicans because it benefited them at the time.
Again, if the South had a clear right to secede, what was all that shooting about from 1861 to 1865? And remember, the North did not go to war with the South over the issue of slavery, but over the issue of secession. So as far as this action of UNILATERAL secession being a clear right, I think history tends to show that it was in noway clear or a right at all.
John Quincy Adams a president and union man in a 1839 speech wrote:"dissolving that which can no longer bind, we would have to leave the seperated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center".
I am sure if you delve a little deeper into how JQ Adams felt about secession, you would see that the man truly felt about it. He thought it to be folly and treason. From his speech on The Jubilee of the Constitution, 1839:
"In the calm hours & 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."
To see more clearly how the man felt about States Rights/Sovereignty, and secession, read the entire speech here:
The Massachusetts constitution: "The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state". And you will remember Massachusetts threated to secede twice, once with all New England.
Please list the dates/times that Massachusetts threatened to secede, and then ask yourself this important question. Did Massachusetts secede? Ever?
William Rawle from Pennsylvania wrote a book in 1825 called A View of the Constitution" which explained in no uncertain terms of the right of secession. He was an instructor at West Point where he taught Constitutional Law. He was also a friend of both George Washington and Ben Franklin.
William Rawle has been discussed before along with his views of secession and the supposed idea that he was an instructor at West Point (he was not). Please follow the link below to see just how little influence he had on the cadets there and how well regarded he is as a constitutional scholar.
Horace Greeley in the New York Tribune on November 8, 1860 wrote: " We must ever resist the asserted right of any state to remain in the Union and nullify or defy the laws thereof. To withdraw from the Union is quite another matter, and whenever a considerable section of our Union shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep it in. We hope never to live an a republic whereof one section is pinned to the rsidue by bayonets.
And what did he right after the firing on Ft. Sumter? "On To Richmond!" if I recall rightly.
A union is not a union when part of that union is forced to stay against its will.
And a illegal rebellion should not be confused with an untested theory. When a region decides to cast it's fate with trial-by-combat, it is left with the results of that combat. In other words, one should not begin something unless one can "secede."
If secession was unconstitutional then why did they not put Jefferson Davis and others on trial?
Mercy? Perhaps Lincoln's legacy of letting the South "up easy?" Because one more death on top of 630,000 was pretty meaningless?
because president Johnson was informed by Chief Justice Salmon Chase that the government would lose because nothing in the Constitution forbids secession.
I would like very much to see a quote or source document where Chief Justice Chase made such a statement to President Johnson, because I am very sure it does not exist.
If Chief Justice Chase had made such a comment that the Constitution did not forbid secession, how do you explain Texas v. White and his ruling on the illegality of secession under the US Constitution?
Under the Articles of Confederation, Chase said, "the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.'" And when the Articles were found to be inadequate to the country's needs, "the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.'" Chase echoed Lincoln when he said further, "It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly that by these words. What can be indissoluble, if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"
"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."
It's pretty obvious Chase was not worried that secession was hidden somewhere in the Constitution, not with the above ruling.
Sorry, but this is old ground and none of it very surprising.
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
I would like very much to see a quote or source document where Chief Justice Chase made such a statement to President Johnson, because I am very sure it does not exist.
If Chief Justice Chase had made such a comment that the Constitution did not forbid secession, how do you explain Texas v. White and his ruling on the illegality of secession under the US Constitution?
Sorry, but this is old ground and none of it very surprising.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
The North should have made it clear in writing that ONLY NEW ENGLAND has the right to even discuss SECESSION from the glorious UNION...
Since they are the only ones who get to play that game.
Provide the quote or eat the crow like a man Tory.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
