I wondered the same thing. Wright was stationed in Atlanta when Sherman and Howard went through. Howard had several friends who went South, including Jeb Stuart and Stephen D. Lee. I will look through Howard's postwar letters to see if I can find out anything about his relationship with Wright after the war. Wright eventually (can't remember when) died in a fire in a warehouse he owned in Atlanta.
No it's indeed the majority of states deciding if it's warranted, not some minority at all, that decides if it's warranted. Not you or I.
11 states was only one-third in 1861 so I'm not following that point.
They didn't secede because of anything the administration had done. It had not done anything. But the demographic trend and the consequences of reapportionment in 1862 were clear even by December 1860. The NY Times has archived articles reporting on the early results of the 1860 census. With or without war, states that became the Midwest and the eastern parts of Kansas and Nebraska, were starting a population explosion. No state that had abolished slavery had ever reinstated it. The eventual outcome was not in doubt.
We are a "union" of states so have bi level governments, a majority of a state is certainly a majority of a state, and state governments choose to leave, just as they had to join.
I think he means majority of the 15 slave states.
Thanks. A majority of a minority.
That's a fair point. That leaves only seven to assert a "right" of revolution as things were in 1860. I see no meaningful difference between a minority of one out of 34 and seven out of 34 - especially as the denominator continued to increase. All much ado about nothing, because the Founders applied common sense; expressly barred insurrection and treason; and didn't build in the facially absurd "right" of any state, or of a group in any state, to decide for themselves to leave whenever they chose for whatever reason they chose.
It does kind of fly in the face of common sense that the Founders set out to create a more perfect Union, in which any state at any time can leave for any reason, including apparently getting in a snit because it doesn't like the result of an election.
I'd actually characterize that as stupidity on their part had they done that - which they didn't. Why on earth would you put all that work in with long hours and debate for four months during summer in Philadelphia and then elsewhere just to build in a suicide clause that could be exercised at the whim of one state?
When it was just 13 states trying to form a permanent country, Georgia and South Carolina had significant power. But how much power did they have when the number was 33 states, with New York and Pennsylvania clearly dominant? The US jumped to the Pacific coast and it seemed probable that the intervening plains and mountains would become states also, without coerced labor.
Not necessarily. The AoC was still fresh in their minds and that focused heavily on state sovereignty. However, they did understand that more power how to be ceeded to the federal government for the government to actually work. This was part of the huge debate in the Constitutional Congress. And of course, there were a number of issues the Founders (in 1787) did not foresee happening, like the Civil War of 1865.
True, but they did build in a process for amendment. Just to be clear, the point I was addressing is the claimed "right" of revolution. Nothing in the Constitution remotely supports that. That may have been because the drafters didn't foresee any state/group making that claim, as you suggest. If they had foreseen it and agreed that any state/group could at its whim pull the plug whenever it wanted for whatever reason it chose, that would have been colossally foolish - in my opinion, of course.
Honestly, it's been a hot minute since I've read much on the succession process in the South. But I would assume most pulled their "right of revolution" from Locke and other Enlightenment writings (even the DOI) to support their decision to leave the Union. I don't recall much citing the Constitution until afterwards. Now of course, if you don't support their reasoning, one is not going to agree on this particular 'right'. I don't believe that slavery was a just cause to leave the Union, however, I do support the notion of self-determination.
Understood and I'm not trying to get into that. I just find it absurd that anybody would put all that work into something - supposed to improve the predecessor - and intend that any one or few could blow it all up the next day on a whim. They did deal with treason and insurrection in plain terms, so there's that. My own opinion is that the Founders put in a process for amending, so I'm good with saying "that's your "right" of revolution".
So did the British write in a revolution clause? I was unaware of the British having such a clause.
Um, they didn't have that clause. That's why the Founders knew and admitted they were committing treason. Go back and re-read the posts because we seem to inexplicably be back at square 1. Hopefully to avoid 30 repetitive posts I understand your belief that they were hypocrites barring treason and insurrection. As should be clear, I don't care as a United States citizen.
Bringing the