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 has recently been suggested to me that the act of unilateral secession has/was always viewed as a right by the states and was never debated because this right was always accepted without question by one and all, even during and after the ratification of the Constitution.
Comments?
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
Seems to me that membership in any organization without the potential for seccession or withdrawal is akin to a general state of tyranny? The states were formed as equal partners in the Union, hence the notion of state's rights. Now, the rub comes/came when a war breaks out while all this is going on resulting in a brawl between supposedly equal partners. Then to the victor goes the spoils and the right to dictate the terms of the surrender or conditions to be in place after the conflict. Reconstruction was the horrible example of that result. Moral of the story: If you secede, you best succeed.
Since we usually only agree on abou 70 percent of our discussion (not bad), I'm curious as to your thoughts.
__________________ 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
"Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people, or part of a people, who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship --on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror--must be the result.
--- Ulysses S. Grant (Personal Memoirs)
After reading the Federalist Papers, the right of a peoples to leave a government peacefully or otherwise, was always maintained. How could it not be, as the colonies had just engaged in similar behavior. My take is, especially from a Jeffersonian view, the right of secession was inherent in the Constitution.
It seems though, that Larry_Cockerman sides with Grant ... if you secede, you'd better succeed.
I've never seen that better said in so few words, Clara. Thank you so much.
Right. Wrong. Undecided. If you secede, you'd better succeed. Awesome!
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
It has recently been suggested to me that the act of unilateral secession has/was always viewed as a right by the states and was never debated because this right was always accepted without question by one and all, even during and after the ratification of the Constitution.
Don't know, Blue, that the particular question will ever be settled in our lifetime. Have watched about 4 years of continuous debate among some really amazing scholars without seeing a conclusion.
I'm leaning to the idea that the founders couldn't find a way to forbid it, although they'd have liked to. So they left the whole specific question up to the next generation to wrestle with. The next generation passed it on to the one after that and so on, until the brothers came to blows about it. To this day, the descendants of those brothers continue to come to blows more than a century after the question was settled.
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
I've never seen that better said in so few words, Clara. Thank you so much.
Right. Wrong. Undecided. If you secede, you'd better succeed. Awesome!
ole
ole,
Wish I could say that statement was mine, but I can't. I should have put it in quotes. It was Larry_Cockerman in the prior post. Thanks, Larry. You and Grant see it the same way.
Can you define your term 'secession'? I don't mean to be a stickler, but what are the properties, philosophically speaking, of secession vis-a-vis revolution.
Daniel Webster:
"Replying to Robert Y. Hayne, Senator from South Carolina, on the subject of a state's right to nullify unconstitutional laws, Daniel Webster stated as follows:
So, Sir, I understood the gentleman, and am happy to find that I did not misunderstand him. What he contends for is, that it is constitutional to interrupt the administration of the Constitution itself, in the hands of those who are chosen and sworn to administer it, by the direct interference, in form of law, of the States, in virtue of their sovereign capacity. The inherent right in the people to reform their government I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is, to resist unconstitutional laws, without overturning the government. It is no doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws bind the people. The great question is, Whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws? On that the debate hinges. The proposition that, in case of a supposed violation of the Constitution by Congress, the States have a constitutional right to interfere, and annul the law of Congress, is the proposition of the gentleman. I do not admit it. If the gentleman had intended no more than to assert the right of revolution for justifiable cause, he would have said only what all agree to. But I cannot conceive that there can be a middle course, between submission to the laws, when pronounced constitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance, which is revolution or rebellion, on the other. I say, the right of a State to annul a law of Congress, cannot be maintained but on the ground of the unalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to when a revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit, that, under the Constitution and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a State government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever.... It is, Sir, the people's Constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the supreme law. But the State legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are not yet sovereign over the people. So far as the people have given power to the general government, so far as the grant is unquestionably good, and the government held of the people, and not of the State governments. We are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. The general government and the State governments derive their authority from the same source.... If there be no power to settle such questions [constitutionality of a federal tariff], independent of either of the States, is not the whole Union a rope of sand? Are we not thrown back again, precisely, upon the old Confederation? It is too plain to be argued. Four-and Twenty interpreters of constitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and none with authority to bind any body else, and this constitutional law the only bond of their union!... Some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grant, restrictions and prohibitions [with respect to the enumerated powers]. The Constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. How has it accomplished this great and essential end? By declaring, Sir, that "the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This, Sir, was the first great step. By this the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States is declared. The people so will it....But who shall decide this question of interference? To whom lies the last appeal? This, Sir, the Constitution itself decides also, by declaring "that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States." These two provisions, Sir, cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the key-stone of the arch! With these, it is a Constitution; without them, it is a confederation. (Emphasis in the original)"
Daniel Webster, "Reply to Hayne," Daniel Webster: Representative Speeches, Little Masterpieces, Bliss Perry, ed. (New York: Doubleday and McClure, 1901), 146-48, 152, 170-171
Burke Davis, in his book The Long Surrender on page 204, noted a quote by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, telling Edwin Stanton that "If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His (Jeff Davis') capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason."
So, secession is not rebellion???; at least, according to the Northern Chief Justice. So is the Chief Justice saying that the Constitution somehow allows secession.
The Northwest Ordinance 1787 was incorporated into US law by the First United States Congress. It forbade seccession.
"Art. 4. The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto..."
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
It has recently been suggested to me that the act of unilateral secession has/was always viewed as a right by the states and was never debated because this right was always accepted without question by one and all, even during and after the ratification of the Constitution.
Comments?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Poppycock. Such a statement is completely without foundation.
The prevention of unilateral secession by the Supremacy Clause was brought up in the North Carolina Ratification Debate as a reason for ratification.
During the North Carolina Ratification Debates, Gov. Samuel Johnston made the following observation concerning the Supremacy Clause on 29 July 1788:
"The Constitution must be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, it would be in the power of any one state to counteract the other states, and withdraw itself from the Union. The laws made in pursuance thereof by Congress ought to be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, any one state might repeal the laws of the Union at large. Without this clause, the whole Constitution would be a piece of blank paper." [_Elliot's Debates,_ Vol IV, pp. 187-188]
He was not contradicted.
Here's what the Supreme Court said prior to 1860:
"The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties." [17 U.S. 316, 404]
"The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it." [19 US 264, 389]
Those two were written by Chief Justice John Marshall, a member of the Virginia Ratification Convention.
As to the theory behind secession, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, countered it:
"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure." [James Madison to Nicholas Trist, 15 Feb 1830]
"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of -98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a SINGLE [emphasis in original] party, with the PARTIES [emphasis in original] to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the PLURAL [emphasis in original] number, STATES [emphasis in original], is in EVERY [emphasis in original] instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word RESPECTIVE [emphasis in original], prefixed to the 'rights' &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should united in contending for the security of them to each.
"It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, Vol. 2, with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject." [James Madison to Nicholas Trist, 23 Dec 1832]
Thomas Ritchie, editor of the _Richmond Enquirer,_ wrote during the War of 1812, "No man, no association of men, no state or set of states has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together, can only unknit. The same formality, which forged the links of the Union, is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficacy of its constitutional laws, is Treason--Treason to all intents and purposes. . . . This illustrious Union, which has been cemented by the blood of our forefathers, the pride of America and the wonder of the world must not be tamely sacrificed to the heated brains or the aspiring hearts of a few malcontents. The Union must be saved, when any one shall dare to assail it." [_Richmond Enquirer,_ 1 November 1814]
Look at the Federalist Papers. The first part is dedicated to showing why the preservation of the Union was essential, followed by a discussion of why the Articles of Confederation had to be replaced because they were insufficient to guarantee the preservation of the Union, follwed by a discussion of why the Constitution was superior because it guaranteed the preservation of the Union.
Look at the Ratification Debates. The Antifederalists, particularly Patrick Henry, kept saying that we would be stuck with the Constitution forever with no way out of it. Not once did anyone ever say that there was a right of a state to unilaterally secede from the Union under the Constitution.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Secession; Always Viewed As A Right? 
Linear Mode
