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.
Hi Union Blue, I just got through moving so I'm still boxed up as the painters work. I did however find this on the net:
"Constitutional Problems under Lincoln," James G. Randall, 1951, Urbana: University of Illinois Press:
"Among the unconstitutional and dictatorial acts performed by Lincoln were initiating and conducting a war by decree for months without the consent or advice of Congress; declaring martial law; confiscating private property; suspending habeas corpus; conscripting the railroads and censoring telegraph lines; imprisoning as many as 30,000 Northern citizens without trial; deporting a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, after Vallandigham - a fierce opponent of the Morrill tariff -- protested imposition of an income tax at a Democratic Party meeting in Ohio; and shutting down hundreds of Northern newspapers."
30,000 held without trial. Hundreds of newspapers closed. Deporting a member of Congress!
Not sure how Lincoln Lovers can justify that, Union Blue!
Which brings us to the core of the question no one has asked yet, doesn't it? Pro Lincoln historians brush off any criticism of Lincoln's abuse of the law, Constitution and Bill of Rights by saying we were at war.
It seems to me the foundation of those documents is that all humans are BORN with, not granted, these rights. The Royal system is based on granting people rights based on the whim of people genetically granted power at birth. Ours has the government answer to us. Well, at least that was the dream at one time.
I am sure there were people caught up in the cracks in the South- but as they don't number in the hundreds to the thousands, no comparison.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights - why do so many Lincoln supporters think its OK to put them on the backburner during times of war or change? What exactly are we fighting for when we remove those items from the equation?
Lincoln's draft resulted in: The Confederate War, Gary Gallagher, 1998, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press:
"The Emancipation Proclamation caused a desertion crisis in the United States Army. At least 200,000 Northern soldiers deserted; another 120,000 evaded conscription; and another 90,000 Northern men fled to Canada to evade the draft, while thousands more hid in the mountains of central Pennsylvania 'where they lay beyond the easy reach of enrolling officers.'"
These figures make the same figures of all wars in the 20th Century and into the 21st Century that we have fought in pale in comparison. Apparently many yankees weren't buying what Honest Abe was selling.
Far more than protested in WW 1, 2, Korea, Nam, Iraq, etc.
Lincoln's abuse of the rights of men was matched only by his double talk: The Glittering Illusion: English Sympathy for the Southern Confederacy, Sheldon Vanauken, 1989, Washington, DC: Regnery/Gateway.
"...So Englishmen saw it. Lincoln's insincerity was regarded as proven by two things: his earlier denial of any lawful right or wish to free the slaves; and, especially, his not freeing the slaves in 'loyal' Kentucky and other United States areas or even in Confederate areas occupied by United States troops, such as New Orleans."
Last time I looked, this thread was on the CSA constitution's attitude about secession.
Start a new thread. The very next post deviating from this subject will be edited to nothing.
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
Speaking of questions unanswered; Why do revisionists ignore the basic question of how can they rationally assume that the right of secession was more protected under a constitution (almost word for word copy of the Original) that no more refers to secession, than the Original?
I wish to answer your post #81 above, but not here, as ole has rightly pointed out, this thread has to do with did the CSA Constitution permit secession.
Please go to the thread entitled,
"Suspension of Civil Liberties" in where I have answered your post.
See you there,
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
Speaking of questions unanswered; Why do revisionists ignore the basic question of how can they rationally assume that the right of secession was more protected under a constitution (almost word for word copy of the Original) that no more refers to secession, than the Original?
Probably retreading old ground (I would flick back through this thread but am stumped at the trivia game), but a lot of it depends on how one sees both constitutions.
If one sees the constitution as no more than a treaty between contracting parties, one can argue that no clause for secession is needed because the treaty can be revoked. If, however, one sees the act of ratifying the constitution as a legal dissolution-then-redistribution of the sovereignty of the states then the document would be perpetual. The preamble of the CSA's constitution suggests the former model, whilst the USA's preamble tends to the latter ('We, the people' suggesting something beyond the actions of state conventions).
I have my doubts about treaty-based views as I think the US constitution instituted a new form of government distinct from the earlier Articles of Confederation which could be taken as such.
I admit my being rusty but, I am wondering outloud as my memory and notes on Revolutionary state/commonwealth's confederation; in which the joining of the 13 was similar -- to a CSA constitution; may have been the 'model.'
I often hear in regards to the Southern view; that this was the 'Second War of Independence,' so -- I am thinking the logic would be to revert to the formation of the Continental Congress to which would later draft and form the "Declaration of Independence."
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
Does anyone really give a rat's patoot what the English granted? We're talking here about the US Constitution and the Confederate Constitution.
The Founding Fathers paid no attention to what the Brits "granted" when they agreed to quit. The Confederates didn't either, until the recent revisionist swarm.
Somehow, the English granting independence to soverign colonies seems like a desperate grab for some kind of legitimacy of the Confederacy's claims. I'll resubmit: who cares what the English said when they decided that they could no longer hold onto the colonies? Are the terms of a capitulation somehow binding on the victor? Ought the Continental Congress have insisted, "no, no, no! Don't say it that way!"?
Weak.
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 British were not negotiating at Paris with 13 representatives of their former colonies, now states, rather they were negotiating and signing the Treaty of Paris with 3 representatives of the United States of America. It was the Senate of the United States of America that ratified the Treaty of Paris, not 13 individual states.
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
My understanding is that the British granted the colonies independence- they did not grant a block of land independence- individual colonies.
It was understood, springing from the Brits release of the colonies, and did not have stated in either.
You have said this before and it has been previously pointed out to you that your understanding is WRONG.
This is what the British SAID in the 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the American Revolutionary War:
=====
Article I His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. =====
You can find the entire text at http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312...fparis1783.htm
The British King is not "granting" anything. He is simply acknowledging that the United States is an independent nation (NOT the states individually, but the "United States" that they are collectively form).
If you think otherwise, look at the text and improve your "understanding" to note that the treaty itself says the treaty is "between the two countries" -- not between Britain and thirteen individual countries.
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
