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.
If law passes both houses by the requisite majorities and the president signs it, all states are bound to abide by it. If a Constitutional Amendment is passed and ratified by the people of a requisite majority of the states, all states are bound to abide by it.When did secession become a power?Too silly for an answer.
ole
Secession became a power when the Federal government under a Liberal mob decided to STOP IT, and PRESERVE Lincoln's military jurisdiction over unwilling states who had left the country in peace LONG BEFORE the fight Lincoln picked at Sumter....
The power to STOP SECESSION was NEVER GRANTED to the Federal government by the STATES, was UNLAWFUL, and was being FOUGHT AGAINST...
Any twisting, rewording, or whatever does NOT grant the general government the right to either coerce states into either remaining in a union, or fighting to keep other states in it.
Read the Federalist Papers. The Federalist 9 through 13 deal with why it was necessary to maintain the Union. The Federalist 15 through 20 explain why the Articles of Confederation were insufficient to preserve the Union and therefore need to be replaced. The Federalist 23 is titled, "The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union."
During the North Carolina Ratification Debates, Gov. Samuel Johnston, on 29 July 1788, said, "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, anyone state might repeal the laws of the Union at large. Without this clause [The Supremacy Clause], the whole Constitution would be a piece of blank paper." [_Elliot's Debates,_ Vol IV, pp. 187-188]
He was not contradicted. If they wanted to have a right to secede, why wouldn't he be shouted down?
During the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, the Anti-Federalists maintained the Constitution was not sufficient to preserve our liberties. Nobody. Not a single person. No one ever said, "Don't worry. If it becomes oppressive, all we need to do is secede and start over." If there was such a right, why wasn't it invoked during the debates?
Here's what the Supreme Court said:
"The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties." [McCullough v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 404]
Chief Justice John Marshall was a member of the Virginia Ratification Convention.
As to the theory behind secession, James Madison himself 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]
Read the Federalist Papers. The Federalist 9 through 13 deal with why it was necessary to maintain the Union. The Federalist 15 through 20 explain why the Articles of Confederation were insufficient to preserve the Union and therefore need to be replaced. The Federalist 23 is titled, "The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union."
During the North Carolina Ratification Debates, Gov. Samuel Johnston, on 29 July 1788, said, "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, anyone state might repeal the laws of the Union at large. Without this clause [The Supremacy Clause], the whole Constitution would be a piece of blank paper." [_Elliot's Debates,_ Vol IV, pp. 187-188]
He was not contradicted. If they wanted to have a right to secede, why wouldn't he be shouted down?
During the debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, the Anti-Federalists maintained the Constitution was not sufficient to preserve our liberties. Nobody. Not a single person. No one ever said, "Don't worry. If it becomes oppressive, all we need to do is secede and start over." If there was such a right, why wasn't it invoked during the debates?
Here's what the Supreme Court said:
"The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties." [McCullough v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 404]
Chief Justice John Marshall was a member of the Virginia Ratification Convention.
As to the theory behind secession, James Madison himself 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]
Regards,
Cash
Uhh, yeah. Heard all this before... Other than Madison going all gooey-liberal to Brother Trist, and some federalist papers stuff (we got plenty of that going for us in Abel Parker Upshur, and (abolitionist!) William Rawles for our side, and you know what? That and 25 cents won't get us a cup of coffee at Dunkin Donuts!).
I meant in the Thing everyone Signed, not what they were fantasizing about getting out of the deal!
You know, THEN AND THERE sort of LAW!
Not this Yankee fine print that not even they can agree on! There was no question if they wanted a right to secede, they had that, (at least at the table with the signers... otherwise, the yanks would have balked and stormed out!)...
It depends upon the will of the yankee as to whether or not a state may secede from the UNION!
AND THANKS TO THE MODERN LIBERAL'S 'LIVING, BREATHING DOCUMENT' STATUS, THE CONSTITUTION COULD VERY WELL BECOME A BLANK PIECE OF PAPER!
If you can't separate your current attitude toward the present government from what was, then you are of little use to the discussion at hand. You serve only to scatter discussion into incomprehensible fragments.
Please. Pick a point, any point, and argue it. If you have something to advance, defend, or propose, put it out there. If not .........
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
And one again, the thread is hijacked into a discussion on the legality of secession. I am all over that topic (see other threads). However, the question on the floor is what state's rights, other than slavery, were being violated by the federal government and how.
I think more would sympathize more with the South if they had said that they were seceding over unfair taxes and unequal distribution of wealth.
__________________ "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)
And one again, the thread is hijacked into a discussion on the legality of secession. I am all over that topic (see other threads). However, the question on the floor is what state's rights, other than slavery, were being violated by the federal government and how.
None.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timewalker
I think more would sympathize more with the South if they had said that they were seceding over unfair taxes and unequal distribution of wealth.
They finally got around to saying that in the 20th Century.
And one again, the thread is hijacked into a discussion on the legality of secession. I am all over that topic (see other threads). However, the question on the floor is what state's rights, other than slavery, were being violated by the federal government and how.
I think more would sympathize more with the South if they had said that they were seceding over unfair taxes and unequal distribution of wealth.
Tried that. The Southern Sympathizers herein get this astounding list of figures from the Pro-Union boys and girls, which somehow 'shows' the North was really supporting the South, of all things!
(Where they dug this up from is anybody's guess!).
Still, it takes a lot to ignore discussions on that subject...
Got this off a pro-Confederate website:
There was a bill before the US congress in 1862 which would have abolished slavery.
It was "defeated", even though the Southern States were not in the union.
The Annals of America,” Vol. 9, published by Encyclopedia Brittannica, Inc. : “Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation actually did not free a single slave, since the regions in which it authorized emancipation were under Confederate control, and in the border states where emancipation might have been effected, it was not authorized.“
Law & History books from the early 1800's Report that South Carolina talked of secession for many years before 1860. So called "Historians" constantly say that SC seceded over slavery and I have had these people who advertise their expertise on American History actually tell me that they have never heard that the South seceded over tariffs and taxes. I have a book that goes
into great detail as to just how close SC came to seceding in 1852 and even closer in 1856. In 1856 if anyone other than a Democrat had won the election they were gone. When it didn't happen in 1856 they knew without a doubt that it was going to happen by 1861. As we all know it happened at the end of 1860. There is absolutely not one single mention of the word slavery in any
of the recorded histories of the threat of secession. Only talk of the unfair taxation of the South. When the South did secede the first debates in the US were about putting ships off the coast of Charleston to stop ships and collect the tariffs prior to the ships entering Charleston Harbor. All, very well documented history.
Chuck Walker
Whatever happened, you can see how well we all get along now, over the subject!
Now you'll hear them begin to rattle the chains of the Ordinances of Secession, and the word Slavery every six inches, and basically they don't see anything else in them but that one word...
My belief is they were trying to send a message to the abolitionists in the North who wanted to let the South go free... 150 years later, of course, with our abolitionist upbringing, we read this as being entirely the cause of the war...
The South is not allowed any other reason for seceding from the Union! They had NOTHING ELSE in mind when they did so!
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
