CSA Constitution did not permit secession.

[ole]

I'll guess it's rather useless to remind y'all that the title of this thread is "CSA Constitution Did not Permit Secession."

But I must confess that I've found the give and take quite fascinating.

ole

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by ole

I'll guess it's rather useless to remind y'all that the title of this thread is "CSA Constitution Did not Permit Secession."

But I must confess that I've found the give and take quite fascinating.

ole

ole,

I'll take another whack at it.

IMO, the Confederate Senate did not DARE pass an amendment that would permit a Confederate State to secede, peacefully or otherwise.

By 1863, the pressure was on and the military future of the Confederacy was not just dark, but pull-down-the-shades-at-the-bottom-of-a-well-on-a-moonless-night dark. The defeat was just around the corner to some and some folks in the CSA Senate were trying to build an escape hatch in the Confederate Ship of State.

From the book, Dixie Betrayed, by David J. Eicher, Chapter 14, Soiled Reputations, pg. 205:

"And in the midst of this arguing, indications of the wheels coming off surfaced in North Carolina. Confederates there were becoming increasingly discontented, and support for the war in the Tar Heel State seemed to be waning. On December 30 (1863) Davis received a letter from Governor Vance referring to the unrest in his state. "After a careful consideration of all the sources of discontent in North Carolina," the governor wrote, "I have concluded that it will be perhaps impossible to remove it, except by making some effort at negotiation with the enemy." On receiving this barrage, Jefferson Davis must have felt a sting as deep as a shot through the side at Chattanooga or Vicksburg. And, like the wounds that brought down Stonewall Jackson, the pain was all the greater knowing the assailant was supposed to be a friend."

Imagine what might have taken place if the proposed secession amendment had been debated and passed.

Would Jefferson Davis have gotten a letter of warning that NC was going to secede from the Confederacy just as in the case Governor Pickens had received a letter from Lincoln warining him about the resupply effort at Ft. Sumter at the beginning of the war?

I sincerely doubt it, I think Davis would had gotten a letter after a declaration of secession had been passed by the NC legislature in the form of an editorial in a NC newspaper.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[M E Wolf]

Dear List Members,

Peppered throughout the Official Record of the Rebellion, there are inter-Confederate pieces of correspondences, to which General Lee was given numbers of deserters from the Confederate Army. This wasn't just on Lee's watch but, soon after the Civil War got real and wasn't a afternoon quarrel and a duel to end the matter.

Also in these official record papers, there were many pleas to spare people from punishment from citizen family members about their 'soldier' who was to be demoted, fined, confinement, death, etc. Lincoln pardoned so many people, it made my head swim. (In a nice way). All inter Union correspondences with head Generals to whom had the 'individual's' in custody and or disposition. I am surprised how many times he had the offending/defendant sent to the Executive Mansion and Lincoln would write back the disposition. To me, Lincoln was a very forgiving man.

Second point I wish to add to, is the two Lincoln's Innaugural speeches. The last, the most clear words, and the intent of his second administration; in summary; was to bind up the wounds of the country, to take care of the disabled soldier and or their widow and children, all without malice. Lincoln saw the good in people. He knew the evil as well.
However--like most men of his time, they were faith based and believed in good over evil.

Third area of response, in regard to Ft. Sumter--No General, President, Vice-President, Secretary of War, Navy, Army and or Cabniet, Congressman and or Representative needs permission to visit a fort. Even citizens can visit a fort. However, going to a fort and start making demands on it, like surrender--would raise eyebrows. Now days, might be put into jail and labeled a 'terrorist.' Either times--all justified.

Although in pre-civil war times, the government had a 'gentleman's agreement,' to supply an area to build a "Federal Fort/defense" for the 'defense of the Union.' That was binding and suddenly the South Carolinia rebellious ones 'changed the rules.' Technically, the fort was 'grandfathered in,' to which the initial agreement was binding. Verbal agreements are still considered a contract. Now days, it is impossible to have large transactions of 'agreements' without paperwork to prove it. These designated Forts and other Governmental premises, e.g. Naval ports, departments, forts, academies; are all now 'written' and 'recorded,' as to never have anything supercede the control and or ownership of the US Federal Government.

I will further add, the Official Records of the Rebellion, the daily reports on how ex-President Jefferson Davis' health and welfare was sent to the Chief of the Armies and the Secretary of War. To be free of prison, all he had to do was swear an oath and not take up arms against the Federal Government ever again. He didn't, that is why he stayed in jail--comfortably in a house.

His former Cabniet members, swore their oath and moved on in life--some even serving in the Senate, Representatives, Courts and some--diplomaticly.

People made their choices and some made it harder on themselves for their own motives--not for the lack of effort on the Federal/Union side in getting ex-Confederates back on track and return to their former lives.

General Lee's famous raider, under General JEB Stuart, was Colonel Mosby, to whom Grant put out a huge reward for his capture; according to Mosby's personal memories written, was a good friend of Grant's after the Civil War and come to admire Grant and wished he had met Lincoln. Mosby in summary, was very fond of Grant and for all the kindness Grant extended to him and the many former Confederates after the Civil War.
There were many examples of such kindnesses--not limited to Grant or others. Not only did Longstreet suffer from those diehards but, Mosby also and the many former Confederates to whom went back into Governmental positions in Federal City.

Anyway, I still maintain that the Confederacy started loosing as soon as they allowed Beauregard shooting on Ft. Sumter. Defacing and or threatening Governmental property is a crime--felony. Discharge of weapons--disturbing the peace. Could have been an interesting court case if just Beauregard was arrested and tried on civil/criminal/military law.
I could also see Carolina's state laws and regulations which at times mirror laws of the Federal Government. Then county/miniciple law...city regulations. Galloping through city streets--the equestrian version of speeding. [Smiles thinking of all those traffic fines]

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[M E Wolf]

Dear DJ_Psychomike;

First off-- No answer is exactly that--no answer. The decision hadn't been made yet. People decline to answer all the time. It is a period of which no answer has been achieved and still in it's formation. Still no excuse in firing the first shot on Ft. Sumpter.
Secondly -- Beauregard had no official business at that fort, he wasn't assigned to it and General Johnson, commanding officer at the Fort Sumpter is not obligated to 'tell official business' to any outside the inter workings of the military. Again, no justification for firing on the fort. It would be no different than I asking you how many times and how you 'have intercourse' with your girlfriend/wife. None of my business, same as you have no business in mine ---nor Beauregard's business in Ft. Sumter's affairs. But, if someone is poking round holes in fort walls--then it is fort''s business.

Now, to the business of newspapers. I have yet to read that President Lincoln himself went personally about to shut down newspapers, destroy things and or shut down Confederate museums (such museums didn't exist until after the Civil War). A President would be all bloody and bruised by the labor of manhandling presses and press type. Things are darn heavy.
I do believe Presidents have better things to do then go personally arrest newspaper men. Both Lincoln and Davis, as well as the military leaders, knew that there were spys in their ranks, as leaks would appear from both sides of the war, giving precious information out.

Both Presidents (Lincoln and Davis) had many newspaper reporters about them. It is also fact, they followed like puppies to get a scoop. They hung around in the military leader's camps--Lee's, Grant's, etc.

From what I am reading from the book "Alexandria- In the Civil War" by author Barber; published in Lynchburg, VA -- the press was stopped because it's reporter and members went off to war, abandoning their business to fight in the Confederacy. Most of the men in Alexandria were part of the Virginia militia. The Alexandria portion of the militia was not prepared at all! They didn't even have much equipment to thwart any Federal attack.

Now, if Alexandria -- closest to Federal City/Washington; was so woefully unprepared--I can honestly understand that other states/commonwealth's were equally unprepared as their militia was formed and taking people away from their work/life.

Again, this supports the error in not having formed a stronger formation of the Confederate States to which, given time to organize, equip, dress and or train -- the first punch, e.g. Ft. Sumter; was premature.

Federals/Union, though loosing a vast majority of quality military officers, some--to whom had Southern ties--saw the bigger picture; to which the vunerabilities would come to the surface. The inter-state bickering of the Confederacy and those 'fragile' egos that were all inter-twined; the political appointments--characteristicly take time to fall away and let 'steadfast' leadership win the day. This has been the modus operandi from the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, French-Indian War and through to the Civil War and up to it's ending.

In regard to your "Ivy League" school comments -- In my personal opinion, I would think that both sides of a microscope view of politics, history, economics, law, etc., would be held to fairly represent the two sides and all in between. And, if kept into focus on the topic and leaving personal hostilities, agendas and or 'stirring up trouble;' left out--it would be a wonderful discussion where it is ok to disagree without becoming disagreeable; as it would fit will in mock 'Government debates.'

That said, in reading what you have written in regard to Ivy League behaviors; it is by your own 'words' to which you suggest that you might have to attend sensitivity classes. I don't think sensitivity classes really work, other than giving a person a more tactful means to say things--yet, the hate, bias and such will remain. Nobody fools anybody in such sensitivity classes--people will hate for any reason they pick--to include your own and thus 'poison' the pleasure of the assembly of pleasant adults in discussing topics, especially when it is proffered as a 'snide' and or 'sarcastic' delivery.

Furthermore, it is easy to 'nit pick' from the safety of this generation. We judge the past, e.g. Civil War, et. al., in our present state and mental processes which can never be accurate but, only personal opinions and assumptions. This is why I prefer official records. 'Just the facts.'

Although we all are entitled to our opinions and share what we know and the like; however--it will never be the opinions of those who fought in the Civil War and or in the Governments of either side.

Just some thoughts.

M. E. Wolf

[M E Wolf]

Dear ole, UnionBlue and List Members,

I have to agree with UnionBlue's comments that the passing of legislature by the North Carolina government; would take the different path out of the normal processess to sucede from the Confederacy. The first shot, for their 'independence' e.g. Ft. Sumter; I'm sure would have been the last shot that sunk the Confederacy, et.al.

Now, plugging up the holes so nobody could easily sucede from the "Confederacy," by preventing such--in the Confederate States of America's Constitution -- was probably a necessity sensed not by President Davis alone but, by other states joined in the Confederacy.

Now, had all the Confederate states prior to joining--wait on North Carolina and let her take the heat for a longer time before passing legislation to sucede from the Union; as to test one state (NC) as to the sincerity of their stand and participation; it might have been where all the 'foot stomping and bratty behavior' of North Carolina--on her own; would have slowly died and perhaps the other states/commonwealths would not have joined into what North Carolina started. Perhaps then General Lee would have never had the need to leave his US Military career, the 125 battles on Virginia soil wouldn't have been necessary and or other states/commonwealths to which entered to stand by their 'friend' and when North Carolina starting a fight to which they never intended to finish--letting others bear the price--it might have been totally different.

The only means for Davis to keep everybody joined, regardless how things changed from the start--the only 'force through manipulation and or implied threat,' was putting into the constitution that clause, forbidding secession otherwise, will be met with force, etc.

Now, if memory serves me correctly; the Federal Government--after the Civil War; added to the Federal Laws--that from this point, after the end of the Civil War; took the wording of the Confederate Constitution, as it applied to secession. In addition to other legislature in which created Forts being Federal Land and not subjected to state/commonwealth control, powers, etc.

If memory serves me correctly, this was added by those members of Congress, to which had representatives from the previously suceded states/commonwealths; as to make sure that there would be hope, there would never be another American Civil War--to which they had just lived through.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[DJ Psychomike]

At the end of the war there was no meaning. The South had lost, but Davis could not be put on trial for fear the courts would rule the states could leave. So, what victory for the North?

Because there was no reason for the war, because the very idea of a just war is by the nature of war, impossible to achieve. Whether you see war as part of diplomacy or the failure of diplomacy, Lincoln had no desire to negotiate anything and was just stalling to get troops in.

A lawyer chose brute force over the law.

So one generation tried to construct honor and bravery of the mass of dead. Interesting that this process which started with the first Vet re-union would only be attended by Blacks on both sides who repelled at the new rhetoric refused to attend after that.

The honor in war can be found on a tree stump from Gettysburg that resides at the Confederate Museum in New Orleans. There are bullets with nails and barbed wirw wrapped around them. Those were meant for maximum damage. Sadistic reminders that unlike the movie GETTYSBURG where no uniform was ever dirty nor any limb blown off, war is not clean, preferable or covered with glory.

The right to pursue happiness is destroyed by a draft and a war. Always.

This is a talk I did on growing up in the South and the first half is what the region thought of the war at the end of segregation. (Which was as false as the Northerner's version). You might enjoy this:
http://lincolntruth.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-02_cy-2008_m-02_d-11_y-2008_o-0.html

The next question is, if we had split up so what? If the experiment hadn't worked why should it hold together?

[johan_steele]

"The honor in war can be found on a tree stump from Gettysburg that resides at the Confederate Museum in New Orleans. There are bullets with nails and barbed wirw wrapped around them. Those were meant for maximum damage. "

???? sorry but that seems a little odd as I don't believe barbed wire was in existance yet. Try and fire a .58 w/ barbed wire or a nail in some way "wrapped" around them and i guarantee life will become quite exciting.

Please keepon track everyone. Did the CSA allow Secession?

[DJ Psychomike]

I can't find any comments by President Davis reputing the sovereign nature of the states.

"...in the judgment of the sovereign States now composing this Confederacy.."

"The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy,.."

I would say absolutely the sovereign nature of the states
was never taken back by the Confederate President.

[M E Wolf]

Dear Johan_Steel,

As far as I can find, no--the Confederacy did not permit any to actively pursue secession.

What I do find, is an increased lack of participation --.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[DJ Psychomike]

No one tried to leave.