GraniteStater wrote:
Oh, BTW, per someone else's observation above - I am a True Believer - in the Declaration and the principles it espouses. We're called patriots.
fred zeppelin wrote:Folks can disagree with you about the historical perspective of secession - and on other issues you may feel strongly about - and still be patriots. I know you didn't intend to question the patriotism of folks who disagree with you. Just clarifyin....
fred zeppelin wrote:I came across an interesting article that discusses various "what if" outcomes had the South not seceded. More food for thought.
http://www.americanhistoryusa.com/great-mistake-why-did-south-secede-1860/
fred zeppelin wrote:I came across an interesting article that discusses various "what if" outcomes had the South not seceded. More food for thought.
http://www.americanhistoryusa.com/great-mistake-why-did-south-secede-1860/
Ol' Choctaw wrote:It was a boneheaded move. The planters thought if they couldn’t expand and weren’t allowed to, they would lose power.
The fact is that there was no place to really expand to. The crops of most of the rest of the country were not crops that needed all that slave labor. Only hemp was a crop were they could be put to use and the country and the world did not need that much rope. For the time, cotton and sugar production had reached every area it could be grown. These same idiots found after the war that it was cheaper to pay the workers than it was to keep them as slaves.
Even had they found it necessary to secede it should have been handled through the Congress rather than by the methods they used.
Slavery would have gone into a slow decline. It might have lasted until 1910 but I doubt it. Once the economy of slavery was really explored they may have seen themselves it didn’t make much sense.
tripax wrote:Haha, sorry. I didn't mean to offend, or rub salt on any wounds, or anything like that. Ol' Choctaw, please feel free to PM me, if you would like to answer my question.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:Sorry tripax but I fail to see how your question relates to the topic at hand.
In the course of this argument about the rights of secession several of us have even had our patriotism called into question for not agreeing with Lincolns policies.
I believe that is a mistaken argument lacking in a full understanding of the rights of states in American Government which has given rise to a powerful centralized government, never intended by our founding principals.
This may go some way in illustrating its early acceptance in American political thought:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McBY9ZAeNiM
GraniteStater wrote:I have never questioned your patriotism, my dear O'C. I have questioned your understanding of the meaning of the Union, especially before and during the late disagreement between the States, which is a different matter.
The rise of a centralized Federal government is much more a twentieth century and current issue, which is not germane in this forum.
And states, any state, US or otherwise, have no rights. Individuals have rights. States and governments have powers, lawful ones, we hope.
Per the central issue of the thread - as a lawyer says, "asked and answered." South Carolina didn't like the results of an election. The local powers in the State thought they could withdraw from the Union and erect a foreign government on the soil of the US. They were mistaken, in every single aspect and dimension. The present Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, all of them, by the nation. There is no mechanism under that Constitution to withdraw from the Union unilaterally, - indeed, the proscription against any State entering into any treaty, alliance or confederation makes the argument in and of itself. To assert that a State may leave the Union of its own accord and then enter into such agreements, is, to my mind, disingenuous at best.
I cannot see how any honest and fair minded reading of Lincoln's First Inaugural Address can fail to persuade. Personally, I am in awe of a mind that recapitulated the history, meaning and import of the Founding and its embodiment in the Constitution in a handful of sentences succintly, dispositively, and eloquently.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:GraniteStater’s view is the one taught in most public schools. It is the government version. It just does not follow that it is the truth of how the Constitution should be read or interpreted. It is just the way it is most beneficial to the government to interpret it.
khbynum wrote:Article I. Section 10. "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation" etc. How are we to interpret that? I'm pretty sure the Founders meant it to refer to States making separate arrangements with other nations. So, perhaps, South Carolina had a right to secede, but the other states had no right to join her in a "Confederation"? Except, they all seceded separately and only formed a Confederation afterwards. Try as I might, this is as close as I can come to any Constitutional justification for the forcible repression of the seceding states. Others obviously disagree.
Those nasty rebels did seize Federal property. The logical course would be to establish diplomatic relations with them and pursue reparations through such channels. They did fire on Ft. Sumter, to them a foreign military enclave in their territory, which the Federals had tried to reinforce. I know these arguments sound simplistic to some, but it really was simple. Just don't fight over it. Lincoln could have made that happen and didn't.
It would be fascinating (and possibly tragic, depending on who was in the White House at the time) to see a State try to secede now. Texas keeps threatening, but California is more likely. The Constitution is still the same as far as secession is concerned. That is, it still doesn't say you can't. Now, there's a real what-if.
EDIT: Wait, hold on, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas seceded after the Confederacy was formed, then joined it, so under the Constitution it was legal to attack them. Right? No, I'm not making fun of a national tragedy, just trying to point out how unnecessary the whole thing was. In my opinion.
tripax wrote:If this is going to be a thread again, I want to point to my question again. I watched the youtube video Ol' Choctaw posted - actually I had to watch it a few times it was so bad - and it really didn't address my question at all. Just to state it again, why do people think that there should be a unilateral right to seceded? I understand that if it isn't in the constitution then we look at precedent. I don't know what sort of federal legal decisions were made about those involved in previous rebellions in the US (Whiskey Rebellion) or in the UK (if I understand, US Law allows for precedents in UK Law, especially in the early days) - should we believe such a right existed based on anything done at this level? Is there a precedent of lawful unilateral succession? For that matter, has it happened since?
If there wasn't a precedent, maybe the argument turns to natural law. Or maybe it relies on the Constitution. The Constitution is nice and short, I've read it. Lincoln, Douglas, and many others are better experts on natural and Constitutional Law than you or I (and much better experts than Dr. DiLorenzo, who, again, was terrible) and I am occasionally rereading these - for what it is worse.
So the answer I am looking for should be probably follow one of the following:
1) The Supreme Court said such and such about previous rebellion(s) X and it allowed for succession in certain cases (or even did not disallow for future succession).
2) British Courts previously said such and such about previous rebellions and it allowed for succession in certain cases (or even did not disallow for future succession).
3) Unilateral revolutions of X groups in Y countries between 1648 and 1860 and were recognized by other countries. These examples are more relevant than counterexamples because of Z.
4) The word of the Constitution is what is relevant here, and the Constitution allows for succession.
5) There was no precedent and no conclusive constitutional position on succession so we turn to natural law.
or
6) Precedent doesn't matter, only natural law.
I am very curious if people who believe in a right to succeed base such a belief on 1, 2, or 3? Which one(s)? Why?
If 4, 5, or 6 is preferred, I'd like to know that, too.
I don't mean to argue for or against anything here, I'm just curious about this one question, why might people believe in a right to succeed for US States in 1860?
Thanks in advance.
pgr wrote:I'm sorry Ol' Choctaw, but I don't accept your interpretation of the right to separate. (Or that your "interpretation" of the constitution is better than "the government's."
The tenth amendment does not authorize secession. Even in the context of its own logic, it doesn't work because article 1 section 10 forbids states to take the action that the southern states took.
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;..." (the attributes of an independent power)
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War..."
These prohibitions effectively bar secession from the union.
We should also add from article 8 of section 1,
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
This authorities the Federal Government to maintain its-self. Allowing unilateral nullification of Federal Authority (which is what SC attempted to do) would clearly render the Union inoperative.
Lincoln was right in pointing out that the various states were always in perpetual Union. They were either Colonies of the United Kingdom, United States in rebellion, united under the articles of confederation, and then under the constitution. There is no legal claim for any state to revert to its independent status, because none of the Thirteen Colonies were ever individually independent. Add to that the fact that the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri were created out of territory administered by the Federal Government weakens even further the argument that the states of the confederacy were "reverting" to a natural independent state.
One may well consider that there is a "natural right" to rebellion, but perpetual rebellion would result in the chaos of a state of nature, which governments exist to end. This means that the right only exists in the case of severe misgovernment, which was not the case in 1860.
Could secession have been legal? If the states that formed the CSA had presented a bill of separation and independence to the US congress, and had it passed and signed into law, then yes. (The current example would be the impending Scottish referendum on independence from the UK, that was recognized as an official process by London)
This is not the case. The south chose independence by a unilateral action denied to it by the US Constitution, and from that point war was inevitable.
GraniteStater wrote:Furthermore, I believe someone above questioned one's understanding of contracts.
First, the US Constitution is not a contract among the States. "We, the people of the United States..." are the opening words of the document - and the Preamble is just as much law as is the rest of the Constitution.
Second, no one party to a contract may lawfully abrogate and terminate the contract, as Lincoln reminds us in his Address of 4 March 1861.
Lincoln settled the matter, really. His FIA is not 'propaganda', it is an historical record, the contents of which all agree upon. IMHO, his views are dispositive - indeed, it might be said that Lincoln is one of the Founders, the Founder who, eighty years after the Founding, understood the Founding better than the participants therein.
So, yes, I do indeed question whether those who hold that SC or any other State could lawfully defy the authority of the US have a complete grasp of the principles, circumstances and conditions of the Founding.
Much like some present day participants in public life.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:
The treaty of Paris was made with the various states, who were united in their actions, not with the United States of America.
Return to “ACW History Club / Histoire de la Guerre de Sécession”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests