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 Kansas-Nebraska Debates in Congress had already convinced many southern leaders that the Northern Democrats and especially the Democrats of the NW were both unwilling and unable to enforce slavery in the territories.
The leadership of the Lower South (the so-called Gulf Squadron) primed and led by Yancy and other radical's had already agreed before hand that the Democratic Party, at it's convention in Charleston, S.C., in 1860 must be made to commit itself, clearly and unequivocally to opening the territories to slavery, or they would bolt the convention and take as many other delegates as they could, with them. This was common knowledge before the Convention even began, the only surprise was the exact numbers that would walk out.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
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.
Different men had different angles on it. However, particularly among military men, there was a strong belief as I outlined. In the post-war literary battles, you'll find men like Longstreet devoting words to justify just how reasonable the chances of success were. (See his auto-biography) Among themselves, this appeared to be a point of ethics and honor: if there was no real chance of success, the West Pointers who "went South" were at fault; if there was a reasonable shot at success, they acted acceptably. Part of that is undoubtedly the strong respect and desire for discipline and order among professional military men; Robert E. Lee himself equated secession to treason and anarchy during the "Winter of Secession".
A man like Alexander Hamilton also believed in the "natural right of revolution". He just had a more limited view about who had that "right", but he believed in it. Here's a section of "The Farmer Refuted" from The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. Edited by Harold C. Syrett et al. 26 vols. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961--79. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...s/v1ch3s5.html
=====
...
The first thing that presents itself is a wish, that "I had, explicitly, declared to the public my ideas of the natural rights of mankind. Man, in a state of nature (you say) may be considered, as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, and, then, the weak must submit to the strong."
I shall, henceforth, begin to make some allowance for that enmity, you have discovered to the natural rights of mankind. For, though ignorance of them in this enlightened age cannot be admitted, as a sufficient excuse for you; yet, it ought, in some measure, to extenuate your guilt. If you will follow my advice, there still may be hopes of your reformation. Apply yourself, without delay, to the study of the law of nature. I would recommend to your perusal, Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui. I might mention other excellent writers on this subject; but if you attend, diligently, to these, you will not require any others.
...
"The principal aim of society is to protect individuals, in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could not be preserved, in peace, without that mutual assistance, and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws, is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals." Blackstone.
...
=====
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw1865
But yes, virtually all ideals seem to be, in actuality, subject to 'reality'
Yes. All "rights", legal or natural, are limited in some fashion by the "rights" of others. That is "reality" -- but the people who espouse extreme views always feel there should not be any limit on their "right". It doesn't matter what the cause is or who the extremists are.
It is easy to see how the arrangement for a state's exit from the Union can be arranged under the Constitution. All the state has to do to attempt it is to act as a responsible member of the Union and work it out within the legal and/or legislative system they have agreed to; the problem is that the secessionists did not want to act that way.
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.
...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....
Don't think Tim went quite that far, but we are seeing some waddles and hearing some quacks.
If they didn't intentionally blow off the democratic convention, they were incredibly impolitic. So. Who knows for sure?
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 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
Reading the New York Ratification Debates, I see nothing whatsoever that indicates his reading of the ratification document is right. I see several instances where people pointed out how terrible it would be if the Union were dissolved. For example, on 21 Jun 1788, Alexander Hamilton said, "I am persuaded that a firm union is as necessary to perpetuate our liberties as it is to make us respectable; and experience will probably prove that the national government will be as natural a guardian of our freedom as the state legislature themselves." [Elliot's Debates, Vol. 2, p. 258]
On 23 Jun, Delegate Richard Harrison said, "The second point agreed on, and which is of equal consequence, is, that a close union is essential to the prosperity of the states; that, therefore, some measures should be pursued to strengthen that union, and prevent a dissolution." [Ibid., p. 269]
On 24 Jun, Richard Morris said, "I am happy, Mr. Chairman, to perceive that it is a principle on all sides conceded, and adopted by this committee, that an energetic federal government is essential to the preservation of our Union; and that a constitution for these states ought to unite firmness and vigor in the national operations, with the full security of our rights and liberties." [Ibid., p. 296]
On 25 Jun, Alexander Hamilton said, "But, sir, their existence does not depend upon the laws of the United States. Congress can no more abolish the state governments, than they can dissolve the Union. The whole Constitution is repugnant to it." [Ibid., p. 319]
On the same day, John Lansing said, "Sir, I know not any gentleman who wishes for a dissolution of the Union. I make this remark because an idea has been circulated, that there are certain persons in this body who are disposed to dissolve the Union, which I am persuaded is utterly false." [Ibid., p. 325]
John Jay, also on 25 Jun, said, "Congress should have power, by law, to support the government, and prevent the dissolution of the Union. He believed this was the design of the federal Convention." [Ibid., p. 326]
On 24 July, Lansing introduced a resolution that "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the Union after a certain number of years, unless the amendments proposed should previously be submitted to a general convention." [Ibid., p. 412] The resolution was rejected. If the ratification meant that the state could withdraw itself from the Union at any time, there wouldn't have been a need for this resolution at all and it wouldn't have been offered. In fact, as Akhil Reed Amar points out, the proposed resolution actually would LIMIT that supposed right, and one would have expected the state rights supporters to oppose this resolution while the nationalists supported it, when in fact it was the other way around.
Nice post, Cash; a habit with you. It's a shame the relatively cool heads visited in your post weren't able to survive or conquer the secessionist movement. More than half a million lives and a bunch of corn and hogs could have been saved.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Nice post, Cash; a habit with you. It's a shame the relatively cool heads visited in your post weren't able to survive or conquer the secessionist movement. More than half a million lives and a bunch of corn and hogs could have been saved.
Thank you, Larry.
There were cases in the ratification debate where delegates said that while they also appreciated the dangers of dissolving the Union, they were more interested in preserving the rights of the people. However, the context of the discussion clearly shows that they were talking about the decision of ratification being the critical action. If they ratified, they would stay in the Union. If they thought the Constitution wouldn't protect their rights, then they would not ratify, and thus dissolve the Union between themselves and the other states. Lansing's resolution was the only reference to dissolving the Union at some point AFTER ratification, and it was defeated. The clear sense of the convention was that ratification would be a permanent act, and if they were going to dissolve the Union it was now or never. By ratifying the Constitution, they chose never.
Thank you for your excellent post in reply to my question.
It seems we have established the fact that the idea of unilateral secession was not a recognized right during the ratification debates. We have also seen evidence that the Supreme Court early on gave the distinct impression from numerous cases that the idea of secession was not a legal recourse or avenue a state could take to leave the union.
We've even seen a southern newspaper editorial that claimed secession was nothing but treason during the War of 1812.
It is this period of history I would like further input on. It has often been said that secession was recognized as an option for the New England States during that period that resulted in the now infamous Hartford Convention, but the record seems a little thin on what actually the convention was about and how secession became attached to it.
Anyone willing to comment on it?
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Secession; Always Viewed As A Right? 
Linear Mode
