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.
Secession became "illegal" in the North...
...when it cost them money.
I understand that this is a drum you like to beat; that doesn't make it so.
"Secession" as used by the radical Southerners of the 1850s was a one-sided ability to withdraw from the United States of America, with no regard to existing promises by their states. No such legal "right" exists in the Constitution or Anglo-American legal tradition and history. The doctrine of a "right of secession" by a state was purely a theory, never formally acknowledged by the US Judicial, Legislative, or Executive branches.
Many Americans, North, South, East and West felt that no such legal "right of secession" existed. Robert E. Lee was one, and said so before the war; after the war, he believed that the question of the existence of any such "right of secession" had been settled de facto by Union victory.
Many Americans also felt that the Federal government had no right to compel a state that wanted to leave to remain by the exercise of force. This is completely in accord with US legal practice of the day, including decisions by the US Supreme Court in the period immediately before the Civil War (such as one or two of the pre-war fugitive slave decisions).
The "right of revolution" is not and never was the same as the legal "right of secession" doctrine. The "right of revolution" is a so-called "natural right", not a legal one. It traces its' existence to the work of Grotius (a brilliant Dutchman) in the 1600s. The Founding Fathers were very familiar with his work and that of those who came after him; they based the Declaration of Independence on that "natural right", not on any airy legal theory of a "right of secession". The entire concept of a "natural right of revolution" was in common use at the time, and was regarded as a fundamental concept by most educated Americans. You can find, for example, Abraham Lincoln mentioning it in a public speech well before the Civil War. But note again: the "natural right of revolution" is not the theoretical legal "right of secession".
But in any case, only one body existed with the power to determine if the legal "right of secession" existed or not. According to the Constitution, that would be the US Supreme Court. Each and every state had solemnly agreed to that in order to become part of the United States. Each and every elected and appointed state official had sworn a personal oath of office to support and uphold that Constitution. I believe every single state had adopted a state Constitution that acknowledged the primacy of the US Constitution. As you will note below, one of the writers of the Constitution, a South Carolina man, believed that the states were never independently sovereign. What, then, would anyone base such a legal "right of secession" on?
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.
Battalation is throwing a jibe at the Hartford Convention
Only in part. He uses this "money" argument for just about anything he chooses to post against the North, particularly any aspect of slavery he can. But his jibe falls apart because in 1814 it seems every state outside New England regarded the Hartford Convention as espousing treason. That would include New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania -- are these "southern" states?
One thing should be noted, though: the New England states had far more reason for economic protests of abuse by other states/the Federal government than the Southern states had at any time before the Civil War.
The policies of Thomas Jefferson had devasted their economy. Prime among these was the Embargo Act, whereby the US government decided not to trade with Britain and France -- which primarily affected New England. Even after they got out from under that, the War Hawks led us into what New England called "Mr. Madison's War" (another Virginian). New England was once again most affected, their shipping interrupted, their coasts exposed to British raids and the threat of invasion from Canada looming.
By contrast, the South of 1860 is in an economic boom, overflowing with prosperity. They have no serious or equivalent reason for complaint against the Federal government.
Also worth noting is what happened in New England after the Hartford Convention in 1814, and the distinct difference between how those states acted and how the Southern states acted in 1860.
After the Hartford Convention, only one state appears to have seriously considered "secession" -- Massachusetts. They never did secede. They first sent representatives to Washington to discuss what the ramifications and details might be (i.e., to see how "secession" might work, implicitly acknowledging they were part of the whole and were not acting unilaterally). Of course, by the time they reached Washington, news of Jackson's victory at New Orleans and the treaty ending the war of 1812 had also arrived; they wisely decided to skip the whole matter as no longer relevant.
Contrast the "secessionists" of 1860-61. First they declare 'secession". Then they seize Federal property. They never approach the Federal government as the Massachusetts delegates planned to; instead they insisted they were already out of the Union. When they could not get their way by bluff and bluster, they assaulted US forces to start the war.
These are apples and oranges. Comparing them yields only vague similarities. When someone can show that the Southern secessionists acted as politely and diplomatically as the Massachusetts people did, we can begin to use the Hartford Convention for reasonable comparisons.
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.
There is no "right of secession": there is a natural "right of revolution", is that correct? The 2 are not to be equated.
Also, did New England contemplate secession several times before 1814 ... Massacusetts, one of those ... is that correct?
Cash seems to think no one state contemplated secession before the South did: it appears some states did, is that right?
Massachusetts did not contemplate secession, nor did New England. There are always some wackos in every crowd, and there were some radical Federalists who did talk about secession during the War of 1812. They were a radical fringe who had no support and no effect on policy. But to claim that they represented New England or Massachusetts is as wrong as claiming David Duke represents the viewpoint of the south today. They weren't even well represented at the Hartford Convention, which in reality had nothing to do with secession.
I have heard it argued before that before or shortly after the Constitutional conventions that the State of New York and others reserved the right of secession.
What's the story on that?
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
To a certain extent discussing New York's ratification is a little moot inasmuch as New York didn't secede.
Nevertheless, the clause they're discussing is:
"Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration, — We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution. In full confidence, nevertheless, that, until a convention shall be called and convened for proposing amendments to the said Constitution, the militia of this state will not be continued in service out of this state for a longer term than six weeks, without the consent of the legislature thereof; that the Congress will not make or alter any regulation in this state, respecting the times, places, and manner, of holding elections for senators or representatives, unless the legislature of this state shall neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same; and that, in those cases, such power will only be exercised until the legislature of this state shall make provision in the premises; that no excise will be imposed on any article of the growth, production, or manufacture of the United States, or any of them, within this state, ardent spirits excepted; and the Congress will not lay direct taxes within this state, but when the moneys arising from the impost and excise shall be insufficient for the public exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a requisition upon this state to assess, levy, and pay, the amount of such requisition, made agreeably to the census fixed in the said Constitution, in such way and manner as the legislature of this state shall judge best; but that in such case, if the state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion, pursuant to such requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this state's proportion, together with interest, at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the time at which the same was required to be paid."
18th century writers could be so eloquent, but sometimes frankly they just wrote drivel.
Essentially what this is saying is that NY is ratifying, BUT will not permit the Federal Government to do 'x,y and z' until the Constitution is amended.
So, technically it isn't a ratification, because you really can't conditionally ratify the Constitution, you either ratify it or you don't. Notwithstanding, at some point if New York's conditions are not met and New York fails to object (or specifically the people of NY), at some point it becomes blatantly unfair for NY to do so, ie. NY becomes estopped from invoking the conditional language of the ratification, ie. you should've done that prior to Hamilton's assumption of the debts, etc.
To a certain extent discussing New York's ratification is a little moot inasmuch as New York didn't secede.
Nevertheless, the clause they're discussing is:
"Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration, — We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution. In full confidence, nevertheless, that, until a convention shall be called and convened for proposing amendments to the said Constitution, the militia of this state will not be continued in service out of this state for a longer term than six weeks, without the consent of the legislature thereof; that the Congress will not make or alter any regulation in this state, respecting the times, places, and manner, of holding elections for senators or representatives, unless the legislature of this state shall neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same; and that, in those cases, such power will only be exercised until the legislature of this state shall make provision in the premises; that no excise will be imposed on any article of the growth, production, or manufacture of the United States, or any of them, within this state, ardent spirits excepted; and the Congress will not lay direct taxes within this state, but when the moneys arising from the impost and excise shall be insufficient for the public exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a requisition upon this state to assess, levy, and pay, the amount of such requisition, made agreeably to the census fixed in the said Constitution, in such way and manner as the legislature of this state shall judge best; but that in such case, if the state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion, pursuant to such requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this state's proportion, together with interest, at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the time at which the same was required to be paid."
18th century writers could be so eloquent, but sometimes frankly they just wrote drivel.
Essentially what this is saying is that NY is ratifying, BUT will not permit the Federal Government to do 'x,y and z' until the Constitution is amended.
So, technically it isn't a ratification, because you really can't conditionally ratify the Constitution, you either ratify it or you don't. Notwithstanding, at some point if New York's conditions are not met and New York fails to object (or specifically the people of NY), at some point it becomes blatantly unfair for NY to do so, ie. NY becomes estopped from invoking the conditional language of the ratification, ie. you should've done that prior to Hamilton's assumption of the debts, etc.
With respect to secession, New York and Virginia make it clear that the PEOPLE, of the United States, may REASSUME the powers that they are delegating to the United States.
There was so much niggling going on during the ratification process, it get's boggling to sort it out. There were a couple of states that held out for an "out" clause. They were told that such a clause was the same as rejecting ratification. It was to be as it was or it wouldn't be.
Now. I forget who told them that. Maybe it was Adams. Maybe it was Madison.
In the spirit of the original question: I don't see where anyone considered it one of the rights delegated or reserved. ("Reserved" as opposed to "retained" may be an important distinction.) I've asked this question around and have received no answer: In international understanding of formal negotiation, is secession recognized as a right or a power, if at all?
old
__________________ 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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
