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.
It's called a federal union: Law of Nations, Book I
§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted. Such were formerly the cities of Greece; such are at present the Seven United Provinces of the Netherlands, (13) and such the members of the Helvetic body. § 11. Of a state that has passed under the dominion of another.
But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations. The law of nations is the law of sovereigns; free and independent states are moral persons, whose rights and obligations we are to establish in this treatise.
-- Emerich de Vatel, "The Law of Nations," Book I
Mr. Henderson,
Mr. Vatel and his book have nothing to do with the issue of sovereignty in the United States nor in the history of how sovereignty was established there.
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
How do you view the English take on Vatal and his "Law of Nations" based on the following dispatch of the period?
Dispatch 304. Lyons to Russell, 4 December 1860.
"The dispatches of Mr. Bunch, Her Majesty's Consul at Charleston, will have made Your Lordship fully acquainted with the details of what has passed in South Carolina with regard to Secession from the Confederation of the United States.
Your Lordship is aware that a Convention is to meet in that State on the 17th instant, and that the result generally expected is that South Carolina will immediately declare itself a sovereign independent state; and renounce all the obligations to which it is subject under the constitution of the United States.
I am not about to importune Your Lordship with speculations as to the consequences of this event, with regard either to the prospects of this country, or to its relations commercial and political with Great Britain.
I merely desire to direct Your Lordship's attention to come to a decision, would be the position of Her Majesty's Consul with regard to the new Government. In principle he would, I presume, stand in no official relation to that Government. Whatever may be the meaning of the pretensions of the separated states of this Union to be each sovereign, it is clear that these pretensions do not fall within the cognizance of any Foreign Power. A State which has not the right to enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; to grant letters of marque or reprisals; to lay any duties on imports or exports; to keep troops or ships of war; to enter into any agreement or compact with a foreign power; or to engage in war; can have no claim to be regarded as sovereign by Foreign Nations.
South Carolina maintains that it has only temporarily abandoned these and other rights to the Federal Power; that it may whenever it pleases resume the independent exercise of them. This is, however, a question with which Foreign Powers have no concern. The only sovereignty which they have recognized is that of "the United States of America." At all events Her Majesty's Consul in South Carolina stands in the position of a Consul appointed for a part of the United States, and exercising his functions in vitrue of an Exequatur from the Federal Government..."
(From the book, The American Civil War through British Eyes, Dispatches from British Diplomats, Volume 1, Nov. 1860 - April 1862, by James J. Barnes & Patience P. Barnes.)
So from what I read is one: Vatal can take a hike.
Two: The only sovereignty SC ever recognized is that of "the United States of America."
Maybe its best if we look at the issue of state sovereignty in the US ballpark. Seems like that's where England thought it belonged.
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 notice in one of the threads, you made the claim that the Declaration of Independence supported your sovereignty theory.
Odd, because I found the following concerning that document.
Charles Pinckney (famed lawyer, one of those writing the US Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 and so a "Founding Father", soldier in the Revolutionary War, a native of South Carolina--his father was the Royal attorney for the colony and he went to law school in London).
This is him, speaking in rebuttal to another delegate in the South Carolina Ratifying Convention over the Constitution in 1788:
"...I mean the Declaration of Independence, made in Congress the 4th of July, 1776. This admirable manifesto, which, for importance of matter and elegance of composition, stands unrivalled, sufficiently confutes the honorable gentleman's doctrine of the individual sovereignty and independence of the several states. (Sounds like he was debating someone like you, Mr. Henderson.)
In that Declaration the several states are not even enumerated; but after reciting, in nervous language, and with convincing arguments, our right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to assert it, the declaration is made in the following words:
"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the authority of the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES."
The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,--as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free or independent. 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."
Now, Mr. Henderson, which is it?
Your view of state sovereignty, based on your opinion only, or that of a man who was there at the time and who helped to write the United States Constitution?
Whose view should carry more weight in the matter?
And please, you should answer his view with more than a snappy comeback.
Unionblue
PS Tim, thank you for the above.
__________________ "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
Another observation from another source you should consider.
"It is obviously impracticable for the federal government of these States; to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all--
Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on the situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained."
Seems like this gentleman is saying that any State trying to regain or claim "independent sovereignty" was impracticable.
Is this individual wrong in his view?
(Remember, Mr. Henderson, that believing a thing does not make it true, and denying it does not make it untrue. Nor will your believing certain things in any degree affect the facts.)
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
It's the case with any promissory agreement between sovereign nations, which do not combine their sovereignty by such.
This is, of course, false.
While I can cite many instances of nations breaking treaties with other nations, they do not have a "sovereign right" to do so.
In some cases (such as the 1922 Washington and 1930 London Naval Treaties), the signatory nations had the right to withdraw from the agreement under a specific procedure. Japan, for instance, rigorously adhered to the letter of the treaties while violating them in spirit, then withdrew from the agreements legally by filing the required 1-year notice when the US and Britain were trying to extend the agreement in 1936. (Japan had ships a-building which would violate the treaties when launched, so she needed to get out before they did.)
But a nation that withdraws from a treaty that doesn't specify a means of ending the agreement isn't acting legally. If they are big enough and powerful enough, or if the other side does not want to enforce their rights under the treaty, they'll get away with their action. Otherwise, the withdrawing nation is simply breaking their word, and the contest will either go through the international courts (modern-day) or devolve into a war.
Even assuming the silliness about sovereignity you are tossing about, that's what this would come down to: the South willfully breaking an agreement they had sworn to uphold, and the war being the result. The new Confederacy based all their homes on a de facto trial-by-combat (foolishly, IMHO) and lost.
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.
I have noticed very plainly, that UnionBlue has asked in a most polite and civil manner for a response to your statements, giving other references to form the basis of a foundation for a civil discussion.
Your lack of response is disappointing and must wonder if you are being obvious with your bias/prejudices in conducting a dialog with the membership of the Civil War Talk.
It is ok to disagree but--this disagreeable behavior, can not be 'just ignored' without being noticed.
For the 'fairness' of a discussion, all wishing to participate should be politely addressed with some response.
I for one, would like to see how you do answer UnionBlue's questions please.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf Posted in a Moderator's Capacity
What is facinating to me as I read this discussion about 'sovereignty' is how others 'recognize it' or 'not.'
Perhaps, it is too easy to forget, that the Colonies were not recognized as a Sovereign Nation, until the Revolutionary War was concluded in total. Only after this rebellion was concluded in total success, did other established Nations/Countries recognized the newest formed Nation--the United States of America. And, the USA newly established government had to apply for recognition to the various old established nations. There were protocols it seemed.
Inter-United States Nations, being known to me; are the American Indian Nations; to which treaties have been repeatedly broken and though under the sovereign powers of the USA; the USA still recognizes these American Indian Nations as -- Nations. And, the Native American Indians continue stepping up to the plate, per se; serving in the military throughout the USA history, as well as in civilian capacities.
As it relates to the Confederacy; South Carolina was the seed to the rebellion but lacked enough standing in the world theater, as to be recognized as a sovereign nation. Only when several more states joined, did they have a more closer observation by other Nations; to which had a 'wait and see' attitude. IF, the Confederacy did manage to win the war; I am not so sure that the Foreign Governments would quickly recognize the CSA as a 'sovereign nation,' as the Federal Government, an established Nation would have to declare itself defunked, in my opinion. And, I don't see that that would ever be considered by those supporting the Union.
Just my opinions and enjoy the discussion on these issues.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
I have noticed very plainly, that UnionBlue has asked in a most polite and civil manner for a response to your statements, giving other references to form the basis of a foundation for a civil discussion.
That he has. I'm most anxious to see Mr. Henderson's response. (Do you suppose he's put UB under the ignore button? If so, that would be quite revealing. Wouldn't it?
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
That he has. I'm most anxious to see Mr. Henderson's response. (Do you suppose he's put UB under the ignore button? If so, that would be quite revealing. Wouldn't it?
ole
Mr. UnionBlue has asked some rather pointed questions and posted some historical data I am really quite interested to see Mr. Henderson's responses to.
I have noted, however, that when there is a lengthy quote or argument to which Mr. Henderson will have a well-nigh impossible time responding to, he either ignores the post, or picks out a single insignificant sentance out of the entire post to which he responds, or simply turns up his nose and states that a reply is beneath him.
I have determined that Mr. Henderson is not interested in a debate. He is conducting a monologue of his own personal views promoting his own agenda to which we are witnesses (although I must admit watching with the same sick fascination one feels when seeing a car wreck).
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
)
Linear Mode
