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.
that right was not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
When would secession not be considered an insurrection? The constitution gave the right of suppressing insurrections to the Congress and the Federal government.
I think it could have been done legally if a state petitioned the federal government to dissolve the bonds. Potentially several states could have done this nearly at the same time, although it would have been illegal per the constitution for them to have discussed it among themselves beforehand.
"Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;"
Once a state had thus, peacefully and legally separated from the union it would be free to coin money, levy tariffs, etc.
I attempt to grasp the idea of a contract that one party can break at will.
The claim is made that the North had already violated this in some vague way, but this has always seemed to me to be sophomoric demagoguery - even during those awkward years when I considered the lost cause a worthy one. (this period only lasted about 3 years, thankfully)
If you read Japanese histories of WW2, essentially the same argument is advanced. Without going into the merits of that, I wonder if there's a "Napoleon Lost Cause" movement that moans endlessly about how he was justified in assaulting those parts of the known world within his reach.
__________________ One can be a brother only in something. Where there is no tie that binds men, men are not united but merely lined up.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
I see very little connection, Captain, between your response and what Unionblue actually posted.
Please try again.
ole
If you actually go back and read my messages, you might - although I doubt it- perceive that what I was intending to do in the first place was raise a question. I wan't even necessarily disagreeing with UB.
UB offered some inane example that "proved" nothing other than the fact that some Southerners at the beginning of the War opposed secession. Whatever this has to do with pre-CW perceptions that secession was, or wasn't, viewed as a right, is beyond me.
I then complimented him on his command of semantics, which is all his response amounted to.
Actually I was being charitable here, since this early Southern opposition smacked more of their perception that it was a bad political move, than that it was unconstitutional. However, since he obviously introduced the Thread in an attempt to either draw unvarnished agreement, or else have the opportunity to shout down anyone who dared offer him something that fell short, he has achieved his purpose.
I have no desire to "try again".
This Forum belongs to the two of you. Obviously neither of you have any other life than posting messages on it, as evidenced by your sheer number of posts: so I will move on, and let the two of you play in your little electronic sandbox.
While researching Calhoun for another thread, I found that Calhoun's theory of nullification was grounded in the Va. Resolution and the Ky. Resolutions and Not the Constitution.
It is interesting that that both Va. and Ky. offered their Resolutions as examples for other states who felt as they did, to follow.
The resolutions drew much response in opposition and very little support from the other states.
Nullification, and/or secession, was not a generally accepted theory by the majority of USA citizens nor a majority of its states, even in 1798-1800.
In particular, many of the leaders of the states were very prescient in viewing nullification as a pernicious theory that would lead, not only to secession, but, also, War.
If you actually go back and read my messages, you might - although I doubt it- perceive that what I was intending to do in the first place was raise a question. I wan't even necessarily disagreeing with UB.
I am assuming this was your Post #413, where you asked, "How does it prove that secession was not regarded as a right?"
UB offered some inane example that "proved" nothing other than the fact that some Southerners at the beginning of the War opposed secession.
I beg to differ, Capt. Coxetter, at least somewhat. This "inane example" that I provided for the book, Bitterly Divided, by David Williams, were simply the more recent examples that disputed the claim that secession was always recognized as a right.
This is not to say that some Southerners of the time did not feel secession was not a right they could exercise. No, my contention has been with those on this forum who have claimed that "secession was always recognized as a right" and that every soul in the Union, North and South, East and West, simply accepted this "right of secession."
I have found historical documentation and evidence that this was not the case, that even in the South, which some seem to think thought, voted, and acted in a lock-step fashion when it came to secession, was nowhere even close to this concept. I hope you have taken the time to read this entire thread, as other examples, and not inane ones, I assure you, show that the right of secession was always debated, argued over, and mostly denied, considered an act of treason in the South up until about the 1850s.
And again, if we go with your statement in your post#413, don't we still have a problem with secession being regarded as a "right" when the North took exception to it and that there were considerable numbers of Southerners who did likewise?
Whatever this has to do with pre-CW perceptions that secession was, or wasn't, viewed as a right, is beyond me.
The examples show that a significant number of Southerners, let alone Northerners, show that secession was not considered a right, long before before the CW and immediately prior to that event. This is what is beyond me, why some cannot recognize that point.
I then complimented him on his command of semantics, which is all his response amounted to.
And again, I decline the compliment, as I do not consider it as such.
Actually I was being charitable here, since this early Southern opposition smacked more of their perception that it was a bad political move, than that it was unconstitutional.
And here is where I would like you to continue your charitable observations and explain to me and others why secession might be considered constitutional and a right somehow overlooked by myself and others.
However, since he obviously introduced the Thread in an attempt to either draw unvarnished agreement, or else have the opportunity to shout down anyone who dared offer him something that fell short, he has achieved his purpose.
I sorry this seems so "obvious" to you, Capt. Coxetter, as I truely started the thread to debate the issue and learn from others about the topic. You seem obsessed with the idea because of my response in blue, that I am somehow taking "the opportunity to shout down" and who "dare" disagree with me.
Of course I disagree with those who hold with the idea that secession was somehow "always" considered a right as history has shown this not to be true, that secession, unilateral secession in particular, has been no such thing as a "right" in early American political thinking nor as a hidden Constitutional right buried somewhere in that document, so cleverly hidden as to be unreadable in clear intent.
But why not show me where I am wrong? Why not present a case that shows the other side of the issue? Why not help me and others understand why Southerners of the 1860s thought unilateral secession was a right?
I have no desire to "try again".
I honestly regret that, but this is your choice.
This Forum belongs to the two of you.
I assume you mean ole and I. You could not be more wrong. We are guests here, just like you.
Obviously neither of you have any other life than posting messages on it, as evidenced by your sheer number of posts: so I will move on, and let the two of you play in your little electronic sandbox.
And this, Capt. Coxetter, is simply a lazy assumption on your part, which says to me is that you are simply unable or unwilling to invest any time for a reasoned response.
I have a regular job with the United States Postal Service that I work at 40 hours a week, during the course of a 5 day work week. I do work the midnight shift, so I have some time before I go to work to view this site and post here. As I do not find very much on TV that is entertaining, I tend to come here and find this medium more more entertaining and informative on a part of history that I have come to love.
I cannot speak for ole, as he and I have not discussed his work or lack thereof outside of this forum.
My advice is not to assume too much. The reason I have a high number of posts here is that I have been here for a number of years.
In other words, leave the "sand box" comments for the children who play in them and use a bit of common sense and common courtesy when posting a reply. The same will be accorded to you.
Jim
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
If this has been posted already I apologize, but this is hard to believe. What is it 1860 in South Carolina? No, it is 2008. At least 73 percent say no to secession.
"Survey finds 18% would support a secessionist effort in their state
UTICA, New York -One in five American adults - 22% - believe that any state or region has the right to "peaceably secede from the United States and become an independent republic," a new Middlebury Institute/Zogby International telephone poll shows."
UTICA, New York -One in five American adults - 22% - believe that any state or region has the right to "peaceably secede from the United States and become an independent republic,"....
I suspect something over four and a half in five have no idea of what they are talking about. Its not the kind of thing most people spend much time pondering, let alone researching.
Even accepting that the poll was anywhere accurate, the Poll still shows that secession (peaceable or otherwise) was still a very minority view.; North and South.
In fact, if one takes the poll seriously, then it shows that among the white's voting (the only valid comparison with that of antebellum america) support of secession is relatively miniscule i.e. probably even less now, than in 1860.
In any case the poll covers support for 'peaceful' secession and ignores the fact that there are peaceful means of seceding, already in existence, as they were in 1860.
If this has been posted already I apologize, but this is hard to believe. What is it 1860 in South Carolina? No, it is 2008. At least 73 percent say no to secession.
"Survey finds 18% would support a secessionist effort in their state
UTICA, New York -One in five American adults - 22% - believe that any state or region has the right to "peaceably secede from the United States and become an independent republic," a new Middlebury Institute/Zogby International telephone poll shows."
Do you support the dissolution of the United States into fifty independent countries?
I would say "Balkanization", but to anyone with any idea what that means at all, it has a very negative connotation, probably even more so than the issue deserves.
__________________ 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
...
I would say "Balkanization", but to anyone with any idea what that means at all, it has a very negative connotation, probably even more so than the issue deserves.
P.J. O'Rourke once did a piece on the breakup of the Soviet Union. He was in one of the new countries near the Ukraine and noted the unrestrained zeal with which people were adopting democracy, splitting off into ever smaller republics until it got to the point where (slight paraphrase) "It's fast becoming the country of 'You and Me And I'm Not Too Sure About You.'"
__________________ One can be a brother only in something. Where there is no tie that binds men, men are not united but merely lined up.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
