Uncivil Action: Was Lincoln Wrong on Secession?

jgoodguy · Jan 27, 2017

Uncivil Action: Was Lincoln Wrong on Secession?

Lets dive into this and see what it is.

Over the centuries, various excuses have been employed for starting wars. Wars have been fought over land or honor. Wars have been fought over soccer (in the case of the conflict between Honduras and El Salvador in 1969) or even the shooting of a pig (in the case of the fighting between the United States and Britain in the San Juan Islands in 1859).

But the Civil War was largely fought over equally compelling interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. Which side was the Constitution on? That's difficult to say.

Was it really? Was it fought over the protection of slavery and to end a rebellion. The Constitution seems to be used as an excuse not a reason in the secession statements.

The Reasons for Secession - Civil War Trust

One method by which to analyze this historical conflict is to focus on primary sources. Every state in the Confederacy issued an "Article of Secession" declaring their break from the Union. Four states went further. Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina all issued additional documents, usually referred to as the "Declarations of Causes," which explain their decision to leave the Union. The documents can be found in their entirety here.

Expired Image Removed

These charts show how many words were devoted to the issues raised in each state's Declaration as a percentage of the whole. "Context" refers to procedural language and/or historical exposition that is not connected to a specific argument.

Slavery seems to be at the center of the dissatisfaction with the Union.
States' Rights
1) The states argue that the Union is a compact, one that can be annulled if the states are not satisfied with what they receive in return from other states and/or from the federal government.

2) The states argue that the North's reluctance to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (mandating that fugitive slaves be returned to the South) means that the compact is no longer satisfactory.

We hold...that the mode of its [the federal government] formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

Georgia

Our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations. These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them.

Bottom line is that the premise appears to be wrong. The Civil War Was Fought by one side to protect slavery, by the other for Union. Any Constitutional issues was in service to the real reasons. IMHO if the constitution had No Secession in bold extra large print, Calhoun would have questioned it and secessionists would have seceded anyway.

jgoodguy · Jan 27, 2017