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.
Though the Confederate Constitution that might be read, as to leave in a peaceful manner --they sure did not do so, when the 'infant' confederacy shot on Fort Sumpter, General Twiggs forced US Army into a 'coup de tat' and forcing the US Forts and personnel, to either leave or be prisoners of war, which hadn't been officially declared and or recognized.
So--for me, the Confederacy was seeing in others, e.g. US Government, what they saw in themselves--.
Fort Sumpter was the line crossed.
A peaceful annexing was when the original plans for Washington, DC/Federal City; included a portion of what is now Arlington County; as to make a 10 mile square. Unhappy, the individuals of 'then' Alexandria County petitioned the US Government to reverse it's inclusion into the creation of Washington, DC/Federal City. It was peacefully returned to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Not a shot was fired and exchanges of Government were peacefully achieved. This 'example' could have been used as a template for those states to remove themselves from the Union.
This is why one does not see a perfect 10 mile square, of what was hoped and planned to be a "Federal City."
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
Every examination of the Confederate Constitution I've read whitworth is that the preamble was a nod to the states that they could leave if they did so peacefully.
Any idea then on why the amendment was proposed at all?
I don't read that as hypocritical at all.
As for slaves travelling into other states still being property- the North had the same laws!
Really? What Northern states had those "same laws?" That Free States title and those pesky personal liberty laws and the Fugitive Slave Laws were all passed because it was the same in the North as the South when it came to taking your property (slaves) was the same? HARDLY.
The two parts of the Confederate Constitution I find interesting are the term limits and line item veto parts, which turn out to have been very far sighted.
Two parts? Wow! I hear Hilter gave full employment to the German (Ayran) people and got the trains to run on time. That's OK even if we consider the Nuremburg Laws depriving people of the money, homes, property and eventually their lives, right?
Check out the other parts of the Confederate Constitution concerning slavery. See if term limits apply to the four million people held in perpetual bondage outweigh your line item veto and one six-year term for the President.
A little bit of sugar in a steaming pile of crap won't make it taste any better.
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
As for slaves travelling [sic] into other states still being property- the North had the same laws!
Not so. Earlier in the 19th Century, northern states (and most southern states too) took the position that slaves brought into a free state became free, with the limited exception that slaves brought in temporarily, or in transit, remained slaves. However, during the 1850s, northern states began to eliminate the in transit exception. The most famous example came in New York in a case called Lemmon v. The People (1859). There, the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court of the State), freed slaves who were in transit from Virginia to Texas. Because New York was a shipping hub, the owners were obliged to ship their slaves to New York, then transfer them to a second vessel for the voyage south. The slaves were lodged in NYC for a few days, awaiting the departure of the Texas ship.
The New York court explicitly held that, although the slaves were clearly "in transit," they became free when they arrived in New York.
The bigger point is that the decision was a matter of state, not federal law. The Lemmons (really the State of Viriginia) argued that the federal Constitution barred New York from declaring the slaves free. New York courts rejected these arguments.
Lemmon, by the way, is the case that Lincoln and other Republicans feared the United States Supreme Court might use to "extend" Dred Scott by declaring that states were prohibited, under the United States Constitution, from freeing in-transit and temporary slaves.
I have discussed Lemmon in detail at my blog. The first post is linked below, Those interested can find the succeeding posts by clicking on the appropriate tag at the right of the page.
The omission of the right of secession in the Confederate Constitution should not be viewed as denying the right. My understanding of this Constitution is that secession was purposely omitted since secession was an implied right, ie. they felt that including it specifically in the Constitution would be an 'admission' (or would otherwise act in a manner to strengthen the North's anti-secession stance) that no such explicit right existed in the Federal Constitution.
The omission of the right of secession in the Confederate Constitution should not be viewed as denying the right. My understanding of this Constitution is that secession was purposely omitted since secession was an implied right, ie. they felt that including it specifically in the Constitution would be an 'admission' (or would otherwise act in a manner to strengthen the North's anti-secession stance) that no such explicit right existed in the Federal Constitution.
cw1865,
And yet, this "implied right" seems to have caused a bit of concern, especially in 1863, when the war situation did not appear to be going very well for the Sovereign States of the Confederacy.
Now, if secession is a recognized right in the CSA Constitution, why try to codify it by amendment into a document that already implies 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
I had been taught that just as it was unnecessary to state it in the original Constitution it was the same for the Confederate. England did not free a land mass, it freed individual colonies.
But what is the fear of leaving?
We helped end Yugoslavia. We are now splitting Kosovo, an Iranian backed pro Al Qaeda pro Islamist state to leave Serbia.
Why is that ok, but forbidden here? Why is it ok for U.S. troops to fight and die for states which despise us to leave their union, but we can't?
Now, if secession is a recognized right in the CSA Constitution, why try to codify it by amendment into a document that already implies it?
Same could be said with respect to the 10th Amendment, ie. why bother?
I don't give much credence or thought to it. Assuming arguendo that secession is legal (and you've read my posts so you know my position on that), then the South could do whatever they feel like.
Over our history it is conflict or the threat of conflict that has posed the most serious challenges to our Consitution (the old security vs. freedom dilemma, ie. do we restrict freedom to protect freedom?) We've been balancing that for over two centuries now (fairly well I might add), but consider:
1. Threat of conflict with France (Quasi-War) - Alien and Sedition Acts
2. War of 1812 - state non-compliance with militia demands, Hartford Convention
3. Mexican War - executive power (specifically Polk's decision to send Taylor to the Rio Grande)
4. Civil War - secession, taxation (first income tax), conscription, Habeas Corpus
5. Spanish-American War (not really disputed, but in retrospect, does the US have the inherent authority to become an imperial power)
6. Great Depression/WWII - court packing, New Deal, Japanese-American internment, censorship, etc, etc.
7. Vietnam - executive power/War Powers Act, social tension and Civil Rights
And of course the list could go on and is not meant to be complete.
The point is that Confederate actions in 1863 have to be viewed within the context of a region that has been at war for two years.
You have the Palmer raids, Woodrow Wilson jailing a fimmaker who made a film that had the Brits as enemies during the Revolutionary War, I only exempt the McCarthy era because I read the declassified CIA documents on the era. The race riots of the teens through World War 2.
Our urge to surrender freedom for a false sense of security remains the biggest threat to democracy.
You have the Palmer raids, Woodrow Wilson jailing a fimmaker who made a film that had the Brits as enemies during the Revolutionary War, I only exempt the McCarthy era because I read the declassified CIA documents on the era. The race riots of the teens through World War 2.
Our urge to surrender freedom for a false sense of security remains the biggest threat to democracy.
For those who don't know what djpsychomike here is referring to:
The Palmer raids came after the wave of bombings attributed to anarchists beginning in June of 1919. They started in November, and by January of 1920 Palmer and Hoover had arrested some 10,000 individuals. The foreign nationals among them were to be deported under the Anarchist Act. Louis F. Post, then Assistant Secretary of Labor, cancelled some 2,000 of the warrants, and about 550 people were actually deported. One of the bombings was the Wall Street bombing of 9/16/1920 which killed 38 and wounded some 400. Palmer rode the crest of his fame to an attempt to run for President, which came apart after his prediction of a Communist revolution in the US on 5/1/1920 proved wrong. Essentially, he was an earlier version of Joe McCarthy.
The 1917 film suppressed during the Wilson administration came out a month after we declared war. It was produced by an associate of D. W. Griffith. It premiered in Chicago, was pulled, then allowed to be re-released after some editing. Among the scenes found objectionable were British troops bayonetting a baby and carrying an American girl into a bedroom to rape her (there was also a scene of a Hessian savagely killing a Quaker). The producer (Goldman) then took the film to Los Angeles, where he premiered it with the scenes put back in: this is what got him tossed in jail eventually, where he languished until his sentence was commuted. No doubt his career and life were pretty much wrecked in the process, though.
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.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
