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.
...
Furthermore, when you consider this angle, also keep in mind that the mere election of Lincoln triggers SC's secession, BEFORE LINCOLN COMMITS ONE AFFIRMATIVE ACT AS PRESIDENT.
...
It goes back further.
As early as 1858 we have concrete evidence of Fire-Eaters in the South openly discussing what will justify secession. At that time, Yancy of Alabama insisted the conditions already existed. Roger Pryor of Virginia established his place on the Southern stage in a famous debate with Yancy, taking the position secession was not yet justified. When Yancy asked what would justify it, the Virginian replied the election of a Republican President would settle it.
Note that no one mentioned "Lincoln". At the time, Abraham Lincoln was a minor figure barely known in national affairs. He did not become a serious candidate for President in the Republican Party until 1860, and even then regarded his candidacy at first as merely a way to get noticed for an 1864 Senatorial bid.
Essentially, the South of 1856 and 1860 threatened to secede if the nation elected a President they did not like was elected. From 1858 on, there are distinct indications the Fire-Eaters worked to split the Democratic Party in order to ensure that election of a Republican -- any Republican -- in order to swing the rest of the South into backing secession. They did so at the Charleston Convention, and Lincoln won largely because he faced no coherent opposition. The Fire-Eaters got their heart's desire, a wonderful example of the old saying to be careful what you wish for.
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 commonly refer to it as the natural right of revolution as well, but to be more precise the natural rights exist and if those rights are being usurped by the sovereign it justifies or legitimizes the revolution. The whole concept, in my mind, is essentially a philosophical end-run around the divine right of kings. The concept of the 'divine right' is that God ordained the king to rule so to revolt against the rule of the monarch also goes against God's will. ...
Generally, the entire concept of "natural rights" arises with Grotius, the brilliant Dutchman, in the 1600s. He, of course, has brilliant people before him that he paid homage to, but if there is one clear point to start a study of "natural rights" with, Grotius would be it. The concept of what "natural rights" were in specific detail has evolved from there.
The concept of the "natural right of revolution" that was so common in American thought from the Revolution to the Civil War came more directly from Hobbes, Locke, and Jefferson. We will find many prominent American statesmen believing in it, such as Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, James Madison and others. The specific definition each had might differ, but they all generally believed some form of "natural right of revolution" existed. Hamilton, for example, believed in it but did not truly believe "the people" had it; he was too much on the aristocratic side for that.
The "natural right of revolution" also seems to be a concept accepted by many West Point graduates in those days. Not very surprising, since the American nation and military arose from it. But one caveat of it in their view was that you had to have a reasonable chance of success to resort to it. Revolution for the sake of revolution without prospect of success was to them generally equivalent to chaos and anarchy -- and so unjustifiable. As a result, many ex-Confederate officers felt a need to justify the 1861 prospects to their fellows.
A good summary and discussion of the issue in American political context can be found at The Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, "The Case for Secession" by
Mackubin Thomas Owens, Associate Dean of Academics for Electives and Directed Research and Professor of Strategy and Force Planning at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. http://www.claremont.org/publication...pub_detail.asp
Here's a snippet. The Stephens mentioned is the Confederate Vice-President. I recommend reading the entire article to get the entire sense of the discussion.
=====
.....
For instance, Stephens invokes none other than Abraham Lincoln to support his thesis regarding the right of secession. He cites Lincoln's assertion in a speech of January 12, 1848, that
any people, any where, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing Government, and form a new one that suits them better…Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.
But Stephens is being disingenuous. Lincoln is not invoking a constitutional right to destroy the Union but the natural right of revolution, an inalienable right clearly expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln never denied this right. As he said in his First Inaugural of 1861. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." But the people's right to revolution is in tension with the president's constitutional "duty to administer the present government, as it came into his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor."
=====
In that review, you'll find this little nugget, among others:
=====
Calhoun divorced the idea of states' rights from natural rights, and invented the doctrine of legal or constitutional "secession" to replace the natural right of revolution as the ground for independence. The South understood that to appeal to the right of revolution, as Jefferson had in the Declaration, was necessarily to appeal to the idea of individual natural rights. Southern leaders balked at such an appeal, because they understood that natural rights flew in the face of their fantastic justifications for slavery. All this is lost on DiLorenzo. (It was also apparently lost on Walter Williams, who wrote the foreword to DiLorenzo's book. It is shameful that Williams, a black libertarian economist and frequent guest host for Rush Limbaugh, would endorse a book that celebrates John C. Calhoun, who more than anyone in American history made the case for the subjugation of blacks by whites.)
=====
In short, it was extremely difficult for Southerners to appeal to "the natural right of revolution" as long as they adhered to slavery, which was in conflict with the entire concept of "natural rights".
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.
Wow. Simply, wow! The last bunch of posts are awesome! I'm overwhelmed to be in the same room with such posters.
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 New York ratification document makes no reference of Article V nor any constitutional process to reassume the Powers of Government.
__________________ 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."
And did anyone at the time refer to Article V as the way to reassume powers?
Let's consider what Edmund Pendleton said in the Virginia Ratification Convention on 5 June 1788: "We, the people, possessing all power, form a government, such as we think will secure happiness: and suppose, in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end; where is the cause of alarm on that quarter? In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss. No, but, say gentlemen, we have put the introduction of that method in the hands of our servants, who will interrupt it from motives of self-interest. What then? We will resist, did my friend say? conveying an idea of force. Who shall dare to resist the people? No, we will assemble in Convention; wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse; and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument. We ought to be extremely cautious not to be drawn into dispute with regular government, by faction and turbulence, its natural enemies. Here, then, sir, there is no cause of alarm on this side; but on the other side, rejecting of government, and dissolving of the Union, produce confusion and despotism."
Notice, "In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss."
What plan? The Constitution.
Neither the Constitution nor Article V are mentioned in the excerpt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
And what procedure does the plan give?
"we will assemble in Convention; wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse; and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument."
Regards,
Cash
This describes a unilateral action by the State...which is exactly what the Southern States did in 1860-61.
__________________ 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 relationship of the states to the Constitution and the Nat'l Gov't was a contentious issue among the Founding Fathers. but, in the end, came to a consensus that was agreeable enough to be accepted by majority of those directly involved.
The fact is that 'unilateral secession' Was 'Not' accepted as a 'right' (natural or not).
Unlike later generations, the Founding Fathers agreed to disagree in order to accomplish the greater good; a newer and better gov't.
They did provide a means of changing the basic document of gov't to almost 'any' extent necessary to remain in existence (De Toucqeville warned about the almost unlimited power of the Constitution to change)
IMO the fact that the founders pointed the way, 'they' preferred 'before' Any Other type of secession could/should be attempted.
So IMO secession from the Union was contemplated by all the Founders, but there was NO consensus on how that might be accomplished., except perhaps, as provided for in the very Constitution, they labored and sacrificed to leave to future generations as their legacy to the Union.
Let's consider what Edmund Pendleton said in the Virginia Ratification Convention on 5 June 1788: ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Neither the Constitution nor Article V are mentioned in the excerpt.
The entire and only purpose of the Virginia Ratification Convention of 1788 was to discuss the US Constitution. What else, pray tell, do you think Mr. Pendleton is discussing here?
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.
The New York ratification document makes no reference of Article V nor any constitutional process to reassume the Powers of Government.
The 'reassume' clause, which is virtually identical to language in Virginia's ratification, is not the conditional language, look down a little bit further and you will see the reference to ratification, but nevertheless, the state shall retain certain powers UNTIL....certain conditions are met (ie. amendments are proposed and made a part of the Constitution)
The 'reassume' clause isn't conditional, its part and parcel with the bargain. It is the PEOPLE who are sovereign, it is the PEOPLE who are delegating that sovereignity to the Federal Government, and it is the people who may reassume said sovereignity. The ratification of the Constitution isn't 'subject' to this language; its emphasizes that the Government rules by the consent of the governed.
The "natural right of revolution" also seems to be a concept accepted by many West Point graduates in those days. Not very surprising, since the American nation and military arose from it. But one caveat of it in their view was that you had to have a reasonable chance of success to resort to it. Revolution for the sake of revolution without prospect of success was to them generally equivalent to chaos and anarchy -- and so unjustifiable.
Grotius I am completely unfamiliar with, even Hobbes, but Locke and Jefferson I am familiar with. My interpretation is slightly different. While I agree with you that to launch a revolution with no prospect of success is foolhardy, I interpret their works to place a 'burden' or an 'obligation' to fight for the natural rights of men. So, you might not have the men and material to sustain a struggle, but you might have resources to hold meetings in taverns, to print leaflets, etc. But yes, virtually all ideals seem to be, in actuality, subject to 'reality'
Essentially, the South of 1856 and 1860 threatened to secede if the nation elected a President they did not like was elected. From 1858 on, there are distinct indications the Fire-Eaters worked to split the Democratic Party in order to ensure that election of a Republican -- any Republican -- in order to swing the rest of the South into backing secession. They did so at the Charleston Convention, and Lincoln won largely because he faced no coherent opposition. The Fire-Eaters got their heart's desire, a wonderful example of the old saying to be careful what you wish for.
This we have to look at in more detail, my interpretation is that the Southern Democrats get ticked off that the Democratic platform would not support the extension of slavery in the territories and so they walk out and stick Breckinridge up, but you're saying that they purposely caused this split to assure a Republican victory to essentially justify the conditions that the relatively conservative Yancy said WOULD justify secession - the election of a Republican president.....That we need to explore, we should open up a thread on that one....
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
