Confiscation & Dr. Pitcavage (Was Reconstruction)
RStacy2229
In article <4qs371$4...@portal.gmu.edu>, mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
(Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>Why should blacks leave the south, where they had lived for
>generations? Why shouldn't ex-slaveowners have left the South?
Well, it would seem to me that blacks DID show a great willingness to
leave those places "they had lived for generations," as you and others
have repeatedly pointed out. They followed and/or joined Union armies,
were slaughtered at Fort Pillow and the Crater, were drowned in Ebenezer
Creek, et cetera. Slaves had long been seeking to escape the places "they
had lived for generations," and prior to the war, the North had encouraged
such escapes, even celebrating such efforts in best-selling books and
sold-out plays. Having conquered and devastated Dixie, however, the North
suddenly had a change of heart and decided that it would be nice if the
newly-minted citizens were to stay in the South and vote to keep the
Republican Party in permanent control of the now all-powerful federal
government. My, but what a startling reversal of opinions was thereby
wrought!
As for why Southerners didn't leave the South, many of them already had
left not only their beloved homelands, but had indeed left this vail of
tears altogether. Some thousands of them had exited by way of Cemetery
Hill and Little Round Top. Others exited via Elmira and other such death
factories. The survivors, however, were afraid to leave the South for fear
that they might wind up in Columbus, Ohio, fall into absurdist Yankee
doctrines and be mistaken for lunatics.
>Certainly in a
>moral sense they had no right to lands they were able to purchase only
>because
>of wealth gained by owning human beings.>
And today's bankers have no right to the property they acquire by
exploiting the public with 21 percent APR credit cards. Seize the Bel-Air
mansions owned by those who purvey smut and violence at $5.50 a pop to the
movie-going public. Confiscate the Florida condo that the Doles purchased
with the money they got by pimping for corporate interests in Washington.
More to the point, by dwelling only on the inflammatory matter of slavery,
we overlook the fact that many foreigners and others had invested money
earned otherwise in Southern landholding. Some of it was, in fact, Yankee
money. Never mind that many planters went belly-up before or during the
war through mismanagement, while others by their own wise stewardship of
land, finances and personnel had flourished. Many Southerners had owned
slaves, but not all had become great landholders thereby. So it is only
those who prospered by their slaveholding (and had not had the good sense
to sell out before the war) who would be punished, rather than all
slaveholders. Dr. Pitcavage's conception of "moral sense" is certainly a
curious one.
>In a legal sense, those slaveowners>
>who had rebelled against the federal government had no right to their
>property (or their lives);
They had not rebelled against the federal government, but had left it,
much as their forefathers had joined the government they had created in
the first place. Secession was not rebellion, nor was it treason, nor if
Minnesota or Maine voted to secede tomorrow would it be any such thing.
Dr. Pitcavage here perpetuates one of the great myths of American history.
Lincoln had no more right to force Virginia into the Union than he had a
right to force Cuba into the Union. To say otherwise is to contradict
every principle upon which this nation was established.
>they had what they had because of the grace of that
>government.>
Finally, Dr. Pitcavage has gotten something right. By dint of Northern
victory in the War Between the States, the conquered Confederates -- and,
little knowing it, their erstwhile Union foes -- possessed nothing except
by the grace of whatever faction controlled Washington, D.C. And it is
still true today, for under the principles by which the North claimed
victory in 1865 there is no property, no right, no tiny corner of human
action which could not be obliterated tomorrow by fiat of the federal
government. The Bill of Rights, thanks to that war, is no longer worth the
paper it was written on, for Congress, the Supreme Court and the executive
can twist the law to say whatever yesterday's Gallup Poll wants it to say.
So when someone tells you that the Confederate cause was just slavery and
oppression, pray that the Gallup Poll remains in your favor.
As for confiscation, surely that would have satisfied neither Dr.
Pitcavage nor his idol, Thad Stevens. Slavery was, after all, the Original
Sin, never mind all that Garden-of-Eden stuff about a snake and an apple.
And I think Dr. Pitcavage would scarcely have been satisfied if Congress
in 1865 had declared that every man who had ever owned a slave, and every
member of every slaveholding family -- having once owned even a single
maid or coachman -- were to be marched to Pennsylvania and pitchforked,
one by one, into the furnace at Mr. Stevens' Caledonia ironworks. Why,
perhaps if they had charged a nickel a head to admit spectators to this
ongoing Roman extravaganza, they could have even paid off the Union war
debt and had plenty left over to buy enough mules to go with all those
40-acre plots for the newly-minted Republican majority in Dixie.
Robert Stacy McCain
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4tpbki$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4qs371$4...@portal.gmu.edu>, mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>(Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>Why should blacks leave the south, where they had lived for
>>generations? Why shouldn't ex-slaveowners have left the South?
>
>Well, it would seem to me that blacks DID show a great willingness to
>leave those places "they had lived for generations," as you and others
>have repeatedly pointed out. They followed and/or joined Union armies,
>were slaughtered at Fort Pillow and the Crater, were drowned in Ebenezer
>Creek, et cetera. Slaves had long been seeking to escape the places "they
>had lived for generations," and prior to the war, the North had encouraged
>such escapes, even celebrating such efforts in best-selling books and
>sold-out plays.
Before the Civil War, slaves escaped northwards and out of the country because
that was what they considered their best hope for freedom. During the Civil
War, many slaves joined the Union Army, but you will notice they didn't exactly
leave the South, but instead fought for the freedom of their wives, mothers,
fathers, daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, and more distant kin.
<deletia>
>>Certainly in a
>>moral sense they had no right to lands they were able to purchase only
>>because
>>of wealth gained by owning human beings.>
>And today's bankers have no right to the property they acquire by
>exploiting the public with 21 percent APR credit cards.
It is remarkable that you would try to equate the wrongs of slavery with the
wrongs of high interest rates.
Seize the Bel-Air
>mansions owned by those who purvey smut and violence at $5.50 a pop to the
>movie-going public. Confiscate the Florida condo that the Doles purchased
>with the money they got by pimping for corporate interests in Washington.
>More to the point, by dwelling only on the inflammatory matter of slavery,
>we overlook the fact that many foreigners and others had invested money
>earned otherwise in Southern landholding. Some of it was, in fact, Yankee
>money. Never mind that many planters went belly-up before or during the
>war through mismanagement, while others by their own wise stewardship of
>land, finances and personnel had flourished. Many Southerners had owned
>slaves, but not all had become great landholders thereby. So it is only
>those who prospered by their slaveholding (and had not had the good sense
>to sell out before the war) who would be punished, rather than all
>slaveholders. Dr. Pitcavage's conception of "moral sense" is certainly a
>curious one.
I'll ignore your equally peculiar comparisons of pornography dealing and
slavery, etc. As for your later point, one can only confiscate property where
there -is- property. It is a practical, rather than a moral point. I do not
recall whether or not you were around for the lengthy discussion of land
confiscation a while back. When I proposed my own "what if I had a time
machine and could go back and become absolute ruler" type of plan for
confiscation, I discussed confiscating half the land of non-Unionist
slaveholders who possessed over X acres of land. My point in offering such a
plan was to recognize that someone who owned just one or two slaves quite
possibly did not have enough land to have some confiscated and still be able to
support a family; my goal was to provide Southern land for the freemen while
not completely divesting anyone of all their property, even if would have been
justice to see it done in some cases.
>
>>In a legal sense, those slaveowners>
>>who had rebelled against the federal government had no right to their
>>property (or their lives);
>They had not rebelled against the federal government, but had left it,
>much as their forefathers had joined the government they had created in
>the first place. Secession was not rebellion, nor was it treason, nor if
>Minnesota or Maine voted to secede tomorrow would it be any such thing.
Their forefathers created a government by rebellion. The South tried to do so
and failed. Secession was merely a political means; when that seemed to fail,
they pursued their goal by what Clausewitz might call "other means."
>Dr. Pitcavage here perpetuates one of the great myths of American history.
>Lincoln had no more right to force Virginia into the Union than he had a
>right to force Cuba into the Union. To say otherwise is to contradict
>every principle upon which this nation was established.
Virginia was already in the Union; Lincoln did not have to lift a finger to put
it there. The problem was that Rebels in the state wanted to take it out of
the Union. Here Lincoln objected.
<deletia>
gary charbonneau
>They had not rebelled against the federal government, but had left it,
>much as their forefathers had joined the government they had created in
>the first place. Secession was not rebellion, nor was it treason, nor if
>Minnesota or Maine voted to secede tomorrow would it be any such thing.
>Dr. Pitcavage here perpetuates one of the great myths of American history.
>Lincoln had no more right to force Virginia into the Union
Lincoln did not force Virginia into the Union. Virginia voluntarily
joined the Union in 1776, and voluntarily reaffirmed its membership
in the Union in 1789. But whether, having voluntarily entered the Union,
Virginia automatically retained the right to leave it voluntarily and
unilaterally, without the consent of the other states, is quite a different
question.
>than he had a right to force Cuba into the Union.
The platform of the Breckinridge wing of the Democratic Party contained
the following plank:
"4. That the Democratic Party are in favor of the acquisition of the
island of Cuba on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just
to Spain at the earliest practicable moment."
The platform of the Douglas Democrats contained the same plank, although
omitting the phrase, "at the earliest practicable moment."
Although the terms of acquisition were to be just to Spain, there was no
indication that they had to be just to Cuba. If Cuba didn't want to be
part of the Union, that was just too bad. Running on this platform,
Breckinridge carried nine of the eleven states that would eventually
form the Confederacy.
Lincoln was not interested in forcing Cuba into the Union. He was, in
fact, quite opposed to the idea. The notion of many Southerners that one of
the main tasks of the federal government was to acquire more territory
suitable for slavery (to preserve the sectional political balance and
to prop up the market value of slaves) was one of the ingredients
of antebellum sectional controversy. In January, 1861, Lincoln declared, "If
we surrender [i.e., if the Republicans were to compromise their
principles on the slavery issue], it is the end of us, and of the
government. They will repeat the experiment on us _ad libitum_. A year
will not pass, till we shall have to take Cuba as a condition upon which
they will stay in the Union."
- Gary Charbonneau
Dave Smith
rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:
>In article <4qs371$4...@portal.gmu.edu>, mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>(Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>Why should blacks leave the south, where they had lived for
>>generations? Why shouldn't ex-slaveowners have left the South?
>Well, it would seem to me that blacks DID show a great willingness to
>leave those places "they had lived for generations," as you and others
>have repeatedly pointed out. They followed and/or joined Union armies,
>were slaughtered at Fort Pillow and the Crater, were drowned in Ebenezer
>Creek, et cetera.
In a remarkable sentence, you conveniently forget the
sacrifices and untold valor shown by African Americans who served
in the Union armies. The statement does little to honor
Southern culture; I just wish you could see that.
>Slaves had long been seeking to escape the places "they
>had lived for generations," and prior to the war, the North had encouraged
>such escapes, even celebrating such efforts in best-selling books and
>sold-out plays. Having conquered and devastated Dixie, however, the North
>suddenly had a change of heart and decided that it would be nice if the
>newly-minted citizens were to stay in the South and vote to keep the
>Republican Party in permanent control of the now all-powerful federal
>government. My, but what a startling reversal of opinions was thereby
>wrought!
Speaking for the Cincinnati, Ohio area, I cannot figure
out where they (African Americans) all came from if the North had
such a determined mind to keep them down South.
>As for why Southerners didn't leave the South, many of them already had
>left not only their beloved homelands, but had indeed left this vail of
>tears altogether. Some thousands of them had exited by way of Cemetery
>Hill and Little Round Top.
And, I guess, to use you previous analogy, were slaughtered
by their commanders at places like Franklin and Nashville.
> Others exited via Elmira and other such death
>factories.
Which, of course, did not exist in the South . . . were
they prison camps, or death factories?
> The survivors, however, were afraid to leave the South for fear
>that they might wind up in Columbus, Ohio, fall into absurdist Yankee
>doctrines and be mistaken for lunatics.
Tis a good thing the Internet is not geographically
specific.
snips; enough of this stuff
Dave
--------------------------------------------------
Dave Smith Always Store Beer in a Dark Place
Villa Hills, Ky -- Lazarus Long
url http://users.aol.com/dmsmith001/
url http://users.aol.com/CintiCWRT/
--------------------------------------------------
RStacy2229
In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>When I proposed my own "what if I had a time
>machine and could go back and become absolute ruler"
You dwell entirely too much on such scenarios, betraying your obvious
megalomaniacal traits. I suppose your time machine also transports you
forward from time to time? Careful, Mark: That's how Newt started, you
know. Get a Ph.D. in history, then start fantasizing about seizing
absolute power.
Robert Stacy McCain
RStacy2229
In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
> Secession was merely a political means; when that seemed to fail,
>they pursued their goal by what Clausewitz might call "other means."
Who pursued that goal? All the South asked was to be let alone.
RStacy2229
In article <4tqut6$j...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, dmsmi...@aol.com (Dave
Smith) writes:
> Speaking for the Cincinnati, Ohio area, I cannot figure
>out where they (African Americans) all came from if the North had
>such a determined mind to keep them down South.
What percentage of the population of Ohio was black in 1900?
Today, the number is 10 percent, one of the highest percentages of
African-Americans in any Northern state. Georgia is 27 percent black;
Mississippi 35 percent; South Carolina 31 percent; Alabama 26 percent. In
fact, roughly half the African-American population of the United States
resides in the 13 states represented by stars on the Saint Andrew's Cross.
Thus, the concentration of black citizens is, on average, roughly three
times as high in Dixie as it is in the rest of the nation. That you,
living in Cincinnati, should have a contrary notion is easy enough to
explain: In the South, black citizens are part of almost every community,
while in the North, they are largely crowded into urban ghettos in the
major cities. Check some demographic analysis of Ohio from the 1990
census, Dave, if you doubt this. Or save yourself the time and just drive
up to some of your all-white Ohio towns like Galion.
As I have said elsewhere, the North's regional approach to racial
apartheid has been quite successful, especially in respect to the
Republican Party's declared 1860 campaign goal of making the West "the
land for the white man." Check the modern-day percentages of black
population in Idaho, Montana, Utah and Colorado if you doubt this
assertion. I always laugh at those who point that today's Republicans are
playing racial politics, as if the GOP wasn't a racist operation from Day
One.
RSMc
Andrew James Llwellyn Cary
RStacy2229 wrote:
<<Lots of stuff. 7 count'em 7, often scurillous messages >>
He said:
(1) You disagree with me. You have a 'North Good'/'South Bad' mentality.
(2) You disagree with me. You are a happy little bolsevik.
(3) You disagree with me. You are a meglomaniac.
(4) The north wanted to punish the south by reallocating private lands to the freedman. The north didn't
want freedmen in the north or the west- evidence the draft riots. A real argument.
(5) The "Evil North" wouldn't leave the peace loving south alone.
(6) The south had every right to secede. Lincoln** had no right to make them stay in the union (The
gentlemen's club argument follows)
(7) The "Evil North" wrote the history justifying it's means by the ends acheived. The south was raped.
I'm going to ignore 1,2,and 3. their arguments stand on their own merit.
(4) You bet the north felt vindictive and wanted to punish the south. Andrew Johnson (by your lights a
renegade southerner) did his damnedest to do it too. No apologies from me, I wasn't there. The northern
laborers did not want cheap freedmen taking there jobs from them. The causes of the NY draft riots are not
so cut and dried as you imply. Racism had a lot to do with it, economics had a lot to do with it, politics
had more to do with it.
(5) Hmmm. I seem to remember something about bloody Kansas... The slave states had been threatening to
secede for many years before they actually did, by the time they did plenty of people ON BOTH SIDES were
spoiling for a fight. The Abolitionists/North had John Brown and Sumner. The States Rights/Southerners had
Quantrill, Edward Ruffin and Prestin Brooks. Elements of both sides were spoiling for a fight.
For a 'country' that wanted to be left alone, the confederacy wasted no time in trying to annex New Mexico
and Arizona for new slave states. not to mention seizing federal property (not state owned property)
without compensation.
(6) The constitution is not a gentlemans club. It is a binding and organic contract. The authors felt that
and that is why no provision for sucession is provided. It wasn't forgotten. It is/was a one way contract.
(7) Actually one of the neat things about the ACW is the overwhealming amount of information written in
support of both sides of the conflict. The southern apologists (like Maury) are articulate and thourogh.
Andrew J. L. Cary | I Reckon that the Opinions
Senior Curmudgeon | expressed here DO represent
Cary Consulting Services, Newark, CA | those of the management of
ajl...@ix.netcom.com | Cary Consulting Services
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ts268$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>It is remarkable that you would try to equate the wrongs of slavery with
>the
>>wrongs of high interest rates.
>
>HIGH INTEREST: A Yankee thing.
>
>Pitcavage again shows his mindlock assumption, "North, good; South, bad,"
>and loses sight of the original argument in pursuing his hate campaign,
>which without exception turns any discussion of anything -- from a flank
>attack to a flapjack -- into a discussion of slavery: "How dare they eat
>those flapjacks, cooked by the hands of oppressed millions!"
>
>The question was, whether Southerners who had lost their nation, their
>sons, their property and their politicial rights should be subjected to
>further depredations at the hands of those who perpetrated those wrongs,
>by having the Yankees seize their lands as well. Let us see how Pitcavage
>can justify that.
First of all, let me reiterate that your placing "slavery" and "high
interest rates" as equal wrongs (and mistakenly assuming one was "yankee") is
beyond bizarre; it is unfathomable.
Secondly, why not rephrase what "the question was," to: whether Southerners
who rebelled against the government should be allowed to keep the property they
owned by virtue of keeping human chattel? You can even eliminate slavery from
the equation; Southerners who rebelled against the government lost rights to
their property. Had the experience of the Loyalists been repeated, they could
not have complained.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ts274$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>> As for your later point, one can only confiscate property where
>>there -is- property. It is a practical, rather than a moral point.
>
>lose either way. When inciting the mob to villainy, you claim a moral
>justification; in its actual application, however, you are willing to be
>practical. What a happy little Bolshevik you are -- Trotsky had the same
>tendency, and look how his skill was repaid!
Alas, in your rush to label me a Bolshevik you forgot to address my arguments.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ts2a4$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>> Secession was merely a political means; when that seemed to fail,
>>they pursued their goal by what Clausewitz might call "other means."
>
The problem was that they asked it with cannonballs.
Tennessee Reb
On Aug 02, 1996 13:37:19 in article <Re: Confiscation & Dr. Pitcavage (Was
Reconstruction)>, 'char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)'
wrote:
>The latter having made the compact way do what they will
>with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till
>released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the powers
>created....
Please note the last portion of this sentence. Just who, pray tell
is qualified to judge what constitutes "intolerable abuse of the
powers"? Is it the "abuser" or the "abusee"? The South thought
such abuse present, and determined to leave. That the Unionists
declared such "abuse" non-existent is hardly surprising.
>"It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down
>by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced
>by one who understands the subject.
>"James Madison"
I believe Mr. Madison objected to the possibility of petty differences
threatening the nation as a whole. In 1860, the differences between
the sections were hardly petty.
>Time to remove Madison from the pantheon and place his name on the
>list of scalawags. His understanding of the Constitution was hopelessly
>biased by the fact of his having helped to write it.
Gary, you should avoid this sort of sarcasm. It casts your position in
a bad light. And, besides, you're not very good at it.
Have a Nice Day,
T. Reb
RStacy2229
In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>It is remarkable that you would try to equate the wrongs of slavery with
the
>wrongs of high interest rates.
SLAVERY: A Southern thing.
RStacy2229
In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
> As for your later point, one can only confiscate property where
>there -is- property. It is a practical, rather than a moral point.
Well, get on one side of the argument or the other, Mark, although you
System Janitor
"James F. Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu> writes:
>OK, this is a reasonable point of view to take, but it opens up a whole
>can of worms that I am not sure you want to eat. For one thing, what was
>the "intolerable abuse of powers" that existed? I have asked this
>question about a zillion times, and I have yet to get any kind of rational
>answer. As of December 19, 1860, what abuse of powers had taken place
>that justified South Carolina's secession?
It says right in South Carolina's ``Declaration of the Immediate
Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina
from the Federal Union'' what they are.
The North was not honoring the fourth article of the Constitution,
which South Carolina claimed was ``so material to the compact [Consti-
tution], that without it that compact would not have been made.''
For years factions from the North actively encouraged servile insurrection
in the South. Southerners hate waking up dead, having had their
throats slit in the night. Southerners put up with this activity
for 25 years, and when the agitators secured to their ``aid the
power of the common Government'', South Carolina quit consenting
to be governed by the common Government. The declaration goes on
to say:
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the
Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from
the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made
sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall
cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the
equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will
no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and
the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
-Mike
gary charbonneau
In article <4tta1g$5...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,
Tennessee Reb <tennes...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
>On Aug 02, 1996 13:37:19 in article <Re: Confiscation & Dr. Pitcavage (Was
>Reconstruction)>, 'char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)'
>wrote:
>
>
>>The latter having made the compact way do what they will
>>with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till
>>released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the powers
>>created....
>
>Please note the last portion of this sentence. Just who, pray tell
>is qualified to judge what constitutes "intolerable abuse of the
>powers"? Is it the "abuser" or the "abusee"?
That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? When is revolution legitimate?
Do you believe that the opinion of the revolutionaries must always
carry the day, solely because they are the revolutionaries?
>The South thought such abuse present, and determined to leave.
>That the Unionists declared such "abuse" non-existent is hardly surprising.
That the secessionists argued that such abuse existed is also
hardly surprising. Such a claim was necessary, not only to encourage
secessionist sentiment among the reluctant, but to justify it as an act of
revolution. However, Mr. McCain's thesis is that the United States is like
the Elk's Club. A state, having joined voluntarily, is free to leave
voluntarily. In other words, in his view (and of course in the view of
many if not most of the secessionists of the 1860's), secession is _not_ a
revolutionary act. No abuse need exist in order to invoke the right of
secession, since the exercise of that right is not contingent on the
existence of any abuse.
>>"It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down
>>by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced
>>by one who understands the subject.
>
>>"James Madison"
>
>I believe Mr. Madison objected to the possibility of petty differences
>threatening the nation as a whole. In 1860, the differences between
>the sections were hardly petty.
In the passage quoted above, Madison objects to the theory, advanced by
South Carolina secessionists of the 1830's, that secession is an inherent legal
right of states, whose exercise is not contingent upon the existence
of differences, petty or otherwise. As a former revolutionary, he did
not object to the theory that there is natural right of revolution
against oppressive government; Lincoln and most other Americans,
North and South, did not object either.
You are correct that the differences between the sections in 1860
were not petty. That is not the same thing, however, as saying that
one section was engaged in "intolerable abuse" (Madison's criterion)
of the other. There were political differences between the sections.
The candidate of one of the sections won an election on a vote divided
along sectional lines. Seven states in the other section declared that
this in and of itself constituted an intolerable abuse and seceded
before the winning candidate was even inaugurated, much less had an
opportunity to engage in any abuses.
>>Time to remove Madison from the pantheon and place his name on the
>>list of scalawags. His understanding of the Constitution was hopelessly
>>biased by the fact of his having helped to write it.
>
>Gary, you should avoid this sort of sarcasm.
What sort of sarcasm would you prefer? But you're right, I regretted
having written it the instant I posted, as it added nothing to the
discussion. Chalk it up to momentary irritation with the claim that
Madison was an adherent of the United-States-as-Elk's-Lodge theory of
the Constitution --a theory that he was obviously quite at pains to deny.
Do you favor the Elk's lodge theory yourself, or do you believe that
a secession right is a revolutionary right, not a legal right?
- Gary Charbonneau
gary charbonneau
In article <hubcap.839012631@hubcap>,
System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>The North was not honoring the fourth article of the Constitution,
>which South Carolina claimed was ``so material to the compact [Consti-
>tution], that without it that compact would not have been made.''
The reference here is, I presume, to Article IV, Section 4: "The
United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a
Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against
Invasion; and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive
(when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
>For years factions from the North actively encouraged servile insurrection
>in the South. Southerners hate waking up dead, having had their
>throats slit in the night. Southerners put up with this activity
>for 25 years, and when the agitators secured to their ``aid the
>power of the common Government'', South Carolina quit consenting
>to be governed by the common Government.
The actual encouragement of servile insurrection was not widespread. Lincoln
opposed the notion. Therefore, it is not clear that the agitators had
indeed secured the "aid and power of the common Government"
through Lincoln's election. Moreover, since Lincoln had not yet
assumed office before seven states seceded, the question of whether
the agitators had secured his aid and power was never put to the
test, as the conditional Unionists pointed out.
In any case, Southerners (and probably most Northerners too, but we are
discussing Southerners here) believed that, if one has certain rights, one
has a corresponding right under certain circumstances to secure those
rights by violence (but for this premise, there would have been no
Ciivil War). Consequently, the assertion by abolitionists that slaves
had a right to be free _automatically_ implied to many Southerners the
advocacy of a right to servile insurrection and to slit throats (regardless of
whether the abolitionists might in fact be Quakers who abhorred violence,
who might advocate acts no more "insurrectionary" than running away).
The demand that _insurrectionist_ propaganda must be suppressed seemed
to lead inevitably to the demand that _abolitionist_ propaganda might be
suppressed, since the two were considered one and the same. And while even the
Republicans might have consented to the suppression of insurrectionist
propaganda, they most certainly never would have consented to the
suppression of abolitionist propaganda. Question: Would Lincoln's
hypothetical refusal to refuse to suppress all abolitionist propaganda
have constituted an "abuse"? Would it have been an abuse of sufficient
magnitude to justify an act of revolution?
In any event, secession was at best a partial solution to the perceived
problem of the advocacy of servile insurrection by Northern
factions -- because one thing it very definitely would not and could not
do was to halt the advocacy of servile insurrection by Northern factions.
True, it would secure the Southern mails from the passage of abolitionist
literature (whether advocating "servile insurrection" or merely asserting
that slaves had a right to be free). Quite probably, a compromise could
have been worked out allowing the seizure of any literature advocating
violent insurrection, but that would not have been good enough, since any
advocacy of a freedom right was considered by extension an advocacy of
a right of insurrection.
Having said that, I think that secessionists were perhaps less interested in
controlling Southern post offices to prevent the passage of abolitionist
propaganda than they were in controlling post office patronage. This,
they feared, could be the foot in the door to the Republicanization of
the non-slaveholding white majority of the South. If the South were
Republicanized, slavery was in real trouble -- Republican pledges to respect
the rights of the states to control their own domestic institutions would
tend to become moot, since the states themselves might take action against
slavery.
- Gary Charbonneau
paul rodi
Did you read Maury's post from yesterday entitled"A Vindication of
Virginia and the South" by Commodore Matthew Fontaine Maury? The arguments
in the article are very good, but then, I'm just a "southern partisan".
Dave Smith
rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:
>In article <4tqut6$j...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, dmsmi...@aol.com (Dave
>Smith) writes:
>> In a remarkable sentence, you conveniently forget the
>>sacrifices and untold valor shown by African Americans who served
>>in the Union armies.
>Just because I do not mention something doesn't mean that I have forgotten
>it. And African-Americans sacrificed as much and showed as much valor in
>their service to the Confederacy.
On an individual by individual basis, perhaps. But certainly not
on a North vs. South basis.
REB 4 LIFE
In article <4ttpr8$b...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, dmsmi...@aol.com (Dave
Smith) writes:
<RSM writes>
>>Just because I do not mention something doesn't mean that I have
forgotten
>>it. And African-Americans sacrificed as much and showed as much valor in
>>their service to the Confederacy.
>
>On an individual by individual basis, perhaps. But certainly not
>on a North vs. South basis.
I agree with Dave on this. There are numerous instances of the loyal and
faithful
service of Black men in CS service, but the assertion that thousands were
under
arms is not supported by any facts that are apparent to me.
IMO, such claims are merely a backlash against those PC types who assert
that Blacks had no interest in, nor contributions toward, a Confederate
victory.
Such assertions are quite wrong, but there is no need to inflate any
rebuttal
beyond what is documentable.
In making the above statement, I will no doubt be at cross-purposes with
many of my SCV compatriots, but I feel it important to stick with the
"real
goods" in this type of argument with PCers. Personally, I would still be
an ardent Southron had not one single Black man took the field for the
South.
R4L
gary charbonneau
In article <4ttpnh$9...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
gary charbonneau <char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>Question: Would Lincoln's
>hypothetical refusal to refuse to suppress all abolitionist propaganda
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>have constituted an "abuse"? Would it have been an abuse of sufficient
>magnitude to justify an act of revolution?
Sorry, that was even more inarticulate than usual. The question on the
table obviously is: "Would Lincoln's hypothetical refusal to suppress all
abolitionist propaganda have constituted an 'abuse'?"
- Gary Charbonneau
gary charbonneau
In article <4ts2cd$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>Was the ordinance of secession issued by some splinter group? Was it
>hatched by bomb-throwing terrorists convening in cellars and alleyways? Or
>was secession, rather, approved and ordained by a peaceful assembly of
>Virginia's duly-elected representatives? What was there in this to which
>Lincoln could rightfully object? If a man joins the Elks Lodge and then
>wishes to quit, do the remaining members put a pistol to his head and
>force him to stay? Dr. Pitcavage makes the Union into an American Cosa
>Nostra, which one may leave only by death. This is scarcely a doctrine
>which Jefferson, Adams or Madison would have recognized as legitimate.
"Montpellier, Decr. 23, 1832
[To N.P. Trist]:
"Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the
South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views
of the doctrine of secession....
"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free,
is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually
and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right
to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to
it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of --98,
adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.
The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding
a _single_ party, with the _parties_ to the Constitutional compact of the
United States. The latter having made the compact way do what they will
with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till
released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the powers
created....
"It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down
by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced
by one who understands the subject.
"Jamees Madison"
Time to remove Madison from the pantheon and place his name on the
list of scalawags. His understanding of the Constitution was hopelessly
biased by the fact of his having helped to write it.
- Gary Charbonneau
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ts2cd$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>hatched by bomb-throwing terrorists convening in cellars and alleyways? Or
>was secession, rather, approved and ordained by a peaceful assembly of
>Virginia's duly-elected representatives? What was there in this to which
>Lincoln could rightfully object? If a man joins the Elks Lodge and then
>wishes to quit, do the remaining members put a pistol to his head and
>force him to stay? Dr. Pitcavage makes the Union into an American Cosa
>Nostra, which one may leave only by death. This is scarcely a doctrine
>which Jefferson, Adams or Madison would have recognized as legitimate.
The Union was not the Elks Lodge.
James F. Epperson
Unfortunately, Paul, the article in question contains a number of
historical errors. It no doubt is a sincere effort on the part of its
author to make a case in defense of Virginia, but he is barely out of the
blocks before he is making mistakes. He claims early on that Virginia had
undisputed dominion over the Old Northwest Territory, when in fact most of
the Northern colonies had claims to at least part of that land (for
example, the so-called Western Reserve part of Ohio, along the Lake Erie
coast, was claimed by Connecticut; "Western Reserve" = "Western Reserve of
Connecticut"); he states that at the time of the writing of the
Constitution that the 13 states were as independent of each other as Spain
is of France, ignoring the perpetual union clause of the Articles of
Confederation. I could go on, but having found two such egregious gaffes
in the first page I am inclined not to.
Jim Epperson | I would like to see truthful
Department of Mathematical Sciences | history written -- US Grant
University of Alabama in Huntsville +-------------------------------------
eppe...@math.uah.edu URL: http://www.math.uah.edu/~epperson
URL: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson
RStacy2229
In article <4tqctf$l...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>"4. That the Democratic Party are in favor of the acquisition of the
>island of Cuba on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just
>to Spain at the earliest practicable moment."
Oh, that the vindictive forces of the North, in pursuing their
"acquisition" of Dixie, had resolved themselves to a course "honorable to
ourselves and just to" the South. Arguably, the prosecution of the war was
one of the most dishonorable injustices ever committed by the United
States government.
RStacy2229
In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>my goal was to provide Southern land for the freemen while
>not completely divesting anyone of all their property, even if would have
>been
>justice to see it done in some cases.
>
But why "SOUTHERN land," Mark? This is the central point: In their plan to
confiscate and redistribute SOUTHERN land to the freedmen, the Yankees
made it abundantly clear that their plan was to control the South
politically, through the loyalty of their recent beneficiaries.
Furthermore, the Yankees intended to prevent at all costs the migration of
large numbers of freedmen to the West, where the Republican Party had
declared from the beginning they intended only white men to live. And they
CERTAINLY didn't want hundreds of thousands of former slaves moving up
North, as had been demonstrated by the New York Draft Riots.
Then again, the goal of confiscation was NEVER to benefit the ex-slaves,
but to punish the ex-masters. The freedmen were pawns in a Republican
chess game, as the entire slavery question had been a Yankee political
tool from the get-go. Until you come to grips with that, you'll never
understand the war, reconstruction or anything else that has transpired
since. This was politics, and politics is about power. Witness the fruit
of Northern victory -- the Gilded Age in particular -- and it takes a very
blind man not to guess what sort of tree it sprang from.
Robert Stacy McCain
REB 4 LIFE
In article <4ttgs9$p...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
<prior inclusions snipped>
>>Please note the last portion of this sentence. Just who, pray tell
>>is qualified to judge what constitutes "intolerable abuse of the
>>powers"? Is it the "abuser" or the "abusee"?
>
>That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? When is revolution legitimate?
>Do you believe that the opinion of the revolutionaries must always
>carry the day, solely because they are the revolutionaries?
Not necessarily, but then again, these are "my" revolutionaries, and
my personal heritage.
>>The South thought such abuse present, and determined to leave.
>>That the Unionists declared such "abuse" non-existent is hardly
surprising.
>That the secessionists argued that such abuse existed is also
>hardly surprising. Such a claim was necessary, not only to encourage
>secessionist sentiment among the reluctant, but to justify it as an act
of
>revolution.
Indeed true. There is then an impasse in this line of thinking...
> However, Mr. McCain's thesis is that the United States is like
>the Elk's Club. A state, having joined voluntarily, is free to leave
>voluntarily. In other words, in his view (and of course in the view of
>many if not most of the secessionists of the 1860's), secession is _not_
a
>revolutionary act. No abuse need exist in order to invoke the right of
>secession, since the exercise of that right is not contingent on the
>existence of any abuse.
As I read the 10th Amendment, this is also correct. I just didn't feel
like picking an argument with James Madison, who is *still* my
intellectual superior even though he is quite dead. (Insert pithy
retort here...)
>>>"It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down
>>>by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced
>>>by one who understands the subject.
>>
>>>"James Madison"
>>
>>I believe Mr. Madison objected to the possibility of petty differences
>>threatening the nation as a whole. In 1860, the differences between
>>the sections were hardly petty.
>
>In the passage quoted above, Madison objects to the theory, advanced by
>South Carolina secessionists of the 1830's, that secession is an inherent
>legal
>right of states, whose exercise is not contingent upon the existence
>of differences, petty or otherwise. As a former revolutionary, he did
>not object to the theory that there is natural right of revolution
>against oppressive government; Lincoln and most other Americans,
>North and South, did not object either.
In the words of the immortal Herb Tarlek, General Sales Manager of
WKRP Radio -- "Okay, fine."
>You are correct that the differences between the sections in 1860
>were not petty. That is not the same thing, however, as saying that
>one section was engaged in "intolerable abuse" (Madison's criterion)
>of the other. There were political differences between the sections.
>The candidate of one of the sections won an election on a vote divided
>along sectional lines. Seven states in the other section declared that
>this in and of itself constituted an intolerable abuse and seceded
>before the winning candidate was even inaugurated, much less had an
>opportunity to engage in any abuses.
I believe this is over-simplified. I refer you to Mr. System Janitor's
post
of the South Carolina declaration.
>>>Time to remove Madison from the pantheon and place his name on the
>>>list of scalawags. His understanding of the Constitution was
hopelessly
>>>biased by the fact of his having helped to write it.
>>Gary, you should avoid this sort of sarcasm.
>What sort of sarcasm would you prefer?
Nice one...
> But you're right, I regretted
>having written it the instant I posted, as it added nothing to the
>discussion.
A good barb is always fun to read, even if its factual content is nil.
<snip>
>Do you favor the Elk's lodge theory yourself, or do you believe that
>a secession right is a revolutionary right, not a legal right?
For my purposes, you can flip that coin and I come up a winner
regardless of which side ends up on top.
R4L / T. Reb
cwood
>The question was, whether Southerners who had lost their nation, their
>sons, their property and their politicial rights should be subjected to
>further depredations at the hands of those who perpetrated those wrongs,
>by having the Yankees seize their lands as well. Let us see how Pitcavage
>can justify that.
The moral issue of confiscation is an interesting one. The American
loyalists who supported their lawful sovereign against traitors lost
their property, as well as sons, political rights, and their nation.
The logic of the argument can be extended to the American revolution.
C Wood
REB 4 LIFE
In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960802113018.5849L-100000@zonker>, "James F.
Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu> writes:
<snippage>
>Once this point is reached we have a
>justification for the war as an effort to put down a rebellion, since
that
>is the Unionist perspective, which within this framework is at least as
>valid as the secessionist one.
Well, it ain't valid from where I sit. If it's *your* "rebellion" that
is being put down, that qualifies as oppression. Either way, through
force of arms against the Confederacy, or through political control
effected through a growing population base in the North and West,
the South was going to be "put down" eventually. Sort of qualifies
Edmund Ruffin as some sort of prophet, don't it?
R4L
gary charbonneau
In article <4tuce3$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
REB 4 LIFE <reb4...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4ttgs9$p...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>> However, Mr. McCain's thesis is that the United States is like
>>the Elk's Club. A state, having joined voluntarily, is free to leave
>>voluntarily. In other words, in his view (and of course in the view of
>>many if not most of the secessionists of the 1860's), secession is _not_
>>a revolutionary act. No abuse need exist in order to invoke the right of
>>secession, since the exercise of that right is not contingent on the
>>existence of any abuse.
>
>As I read the 10th Amendment, this is also correct. I just didn't feel
>like picking an argument with James Madison, who is *still* my
>intellectual superior even though he is quite dead. (Insert pithy
>retort here...)
Madison's intelligence is not at issue. The question is not whether
allowing legal secession was a smart thing to do, but whether it was
actually done. I take Madison's words as evidence regarding what
the Founding Fathers (one Founding Father at least) thought they
were doing.
My reading of the 10th Amendment is quite different from yours. I
do not believe that it entails a secession right, for the following
reasons:
1. The other amendments in the Bill of Rights spell out specific
rights retained by the people or by the states because those rights
are believed to be particularly important. The 10th Amendment covers
rights of lesser importance, or perhaps sufficiently obvious as to not
need mentioning.
A secession right, if it existed, would be the most fundamental right that
states would possess, and its deliberate omission from the list of explicit
rights in the amendments preceding the 10th would be extremely curious.
Perhaps it is one of the "shadows" and "penumbras" of rights lurking therein,
but it is odd that the authors of the Bill of Rights would have de-
liberately intended to hide it there in the shadows.
It also seems unlikely that a secession right was not explicitly mentioned
only because it was too obvious to need mentioning. One of the
Constitution's principal authors, Madison, didn't think it was obvious at all.
2. Neither the Constitution nor any subsequent U.S. law made any
provision for an obvious implication of legal secession -- the
distribution of the assets and liabilities of the Union in the
event of dissolution. Could a state secede without assuming
its portion of the national debt? How was its portion to be
determined? If a state seceded, what was to become of the U.S.
government property (e.g., Fort Sumter) located in its territory?
Since the law did not provide otherwise, the conclusion is
inescapable that, upon South Carolina's secession, Fort Sumter
remained the property of the United States government and of the
people of the United States.
Assume the premise that secession were legal. It resulted in a situation in
which South Carolina and the Confederacy, although legally independent,
found themselves containing pockets of what was indisputedly the property of
a foreign government. This is a highly peculiar anomaly. The most
logical way of accounting for the anomaly is to question the initial
premise regarding the legality of secession.
- Gary Charbonneau
paul rodi
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>In article <4tuce3$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>REB 4 LIFE <reb4...@aol.com> wrote:
>>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>
>>> However, Mr. McCain's thesis is that the United States is like
>>>the Elk's Club. A state, having joined voluntarily, is free to leave
>>>voluntarily. In other words, in his view (and of course in the view of
>>>many if not most of the secessionists of the 1860's), secession is _not_
>>>a revolutionary act. No abuse need exist in order to invoke the right of
>>>secession, since the exercise of that right is not contingent on the
>>>existence of any abuse.
>>
>>As I read the 10th Amendment, this is also correct. I just didn't feel
>>like picking an argument with James Madison, who is *still* my
>>intellectual superior even though he is quite dead. (Insert pithy
>>retort here...)
>
I will assume the premise because I believe it to be so. However, this is
not a "highly peculiar anomaly". If it is, then how do you explain the
presence of the various military bases the U.S. has today in France,
England, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
We are there at the invitation of those countries or as part of an
alliance. If the host country no longer desires or has need of our
military presence, would they not be justified in requesting that we
leave? And would they not be justified in reacting in a hostile manner if
we refused? In my opinion, and in the eyes of the world, yes they would.
Therefore, since South Carolina and the rest of the Confederacy, believed
that secession was legal, and that they were an independent and sovereign
nation, they had the right to demand that those "pockets of what was
indisputedly the property of a foreign government" be abandoned.
Especially since that government was a hostile government. When that
foreign government not only refused to abandon its base in Charleston
harbor, but attempted to resupply it, the Confederacy was left with only
one option.
Dave Smith
"James F. Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu> wrote:
>On 2 Aug 1996, Tennessee Reb wrote:
>> On Aug 02, 1996 13:37:19 in article <Re: Confiscation & Dr. Pitcavage (Was
>> Reconstruction)>, 'char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)'
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >The latter having made the compact way do what they will
>> >with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till
>> >released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the powers
>> >created....
>>
>> Please note the last portion of this sentence. Just who, pray tell
>> is qualified to judge what constitutes "intolerable abuse of the
>> powers"? Is it the "abuser" or the "abusee"? The South thought
>> such abuse present, and determined to leave. That the Unionists
>> declared such "abuse" non-existent is hardly surprising.
>OK, this is a reasonable point of view to take, but it opens up a whole
>can of worms that I am not sure you want to eat. For one thing, what was
>the "intolerable abuse of powers" that existed? I have asked this
>question about a zillion times, and I have yet to get any kind of rational
>answer. As of December 19, 1860, what abuse of powers had taken place
>that justified South Carolina's secession?
To the best I can tell (and those of you who read here know
I don't often post in these kinds of threads), the general
balance of "abuse of power", as explained here, is generally one
of future expected "abuse". In other words, the election of
Lincoln would cause . . . as opposed to finite statements of the
election of Lincoln "has caused".
Since we were using Gary's quotation from Madison's letters,
I would have to think that the former President's use of the term
"abuse" would be more geared towards abuses that had actually
happened.
I have to agree with Jim here. The lack of documented
abuses by the North seriously weakens any consideration of a hurt
South trying to escape the clutches of the North. It still
doesn't mean the South was not entitled to try to leave; it just
means the cause in 1860-61 wasn't quite as noble in those terms
as some would have us believe.
snips
Charles Ten Brink
In article <4u5b7d$7...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
gary charbonneau <char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>It also seems unlikely that a secession right was not explicitly mentioned
>only because it was too obvious to need mentioning. One of the
>Constitution's principal authors, Madison, didn't think it was obvious at all.
>
agreement that a right of secession existed that it simply wasn't
discussed at all) to be, well, mystifying. Plenty of other rights
that everyone agreed existed were firmly and explicitly enshrined
in the Bill of Rights. And unlike, say, habeas corpus, a right
of secession had not previously existed (under the Articles of
Confederation).
If the Constitution had been intended to adopt such a change in
the nature of the Union, or if the Virginia or New York ratifications
were intended to reserve such a right, I would expect *someone*,
*somewhere*, to have commented upon it. As in, "gee, Virginia
sez she can bolt any time she wants; that's novel". I've yet
to find any such statement made at the time of the adoption of
the Constitution. The arguments made years later all smell rather
like the Archbishop's speech from _Henry V_. (Hey, Axel, we're
back to Shakespeare again!)
Yours,
Chuck Ten Brink
--
Associate Law Librarian < He did not catch babies with a spearhead as
D'Angelo Law Library, UC * was the practice of other Vikings; for this
c-ten...@uchicago.edu > reason he was called "child-friend".
gary charbonneau
In article <4u5gg3$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>>Assume the premise that secession were legal. It resulted in a situation in
>>which South Carolina and the Confederacy, although legally independent,
>>found themselves containing pockets of what was indisputedly the property of
>>a foreign government. This is a highly peculiar anomaly. The most
>>logical way of accounting for the anomaly is to question the initial
>>premise regarding the legality of secession.
>>
>>- Gary Charbonneau
>
>I will assume the premise because I believe it to be so. However, this is
>not a "highly peculiar anomaly". If it is, then how do you explain the
>presence of the various military bases the U.S. has today in France,
>England, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
>
>We are there at the invitation of those countries or as part of an
>alliance. If the host country no longer desires or has need of our
>military presence, would they not be justified in requesting that we
>leave? And would they not be justified in reacting in a hostile manner if
>we refused? In my opinion, and in the eyes of the world, yes they would.
The bases in question are there presumably as a result of treaties or
agreements which the United States has with the host countries. There
would be no question of permanent ownership of the base by the United
States, but only of its occupation for some stated or indefinite
period of time.
Fort Sumter was not in Charleston Harbor because of some treaty between the
United States and South Carolina, under which South Carolina specified that
the United States was allowed to build a fort in Charleston Harbor, and to
retain it only so long as South Carolina wished it to remain there. Fort
Sumter was there because the United States has the right to build military
bases in the territory of the United States (subject to certain obvious legal
requirements such as purchase or ownership of land).
Your analogy to an American base in Germany is not correct. A more
appropriate analogy would be to a German military base in Germany.
- Gary Charbonneau
gary charbonneau
In article <Dvq1t...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Charles Ten Brink <cj...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>I have always found this argument (that everyone was in such perfect
>agreement that a right of secession existed that it simply wasn't
>discussed at all) to be, well, mystifying. Plenty of other rights
>that everyone agreed existed were firmly and explicitly enshrined
>in the Bill of Rights. And unlike, say, habeas corpus, a right
>of secession had not previously existed (under the Articles of
>Confederation).
>
>If the Constitution had been intended to adopt such a change in
>the nature of the Union, or if the Virginia or New York ratifications
>were intended to reserve such a right, I would expect *someone*,
>*somewhere*, to have commented upon it. As in, "gee, Virginia
>sez she can bolt any time she wants; that's novel". I've yet
>to find any such statement made at the time of the adoption of
>the Constitution.
At the time that New York was considering ratification with reservations,
Madison wrote a private letter to Hamilton saying, in effect, "You guys can't
do that. Ratification has to be without reservation, or not at all." Of
course, Madison's own Virginia ratified with reservations.
There are really three questions here:
1. Whether any stated reservations had any legal standing (i.e., had to be
accepted by the other states). The ratification procedure made no provision
for reservations.
2. Whether, if reservations did have legal standing, the right of secession was
limited only to those states who ratified with reservations.
3. Whether Virginia was saying it could bolt any time it wanted.
Virginia's form of ratification did not in fact say that.
- Gary Charbonneau
paul rodi
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>In article <4u5gg3$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>
>>>which South Carolina and the Confederacy, although legally independent,
>>>found themselves containing pockets of what was indisputedly the property of
>>>a foreign government. This is a highly peculiar anomaly. The most
>>>logical way of accounting for the anomaly is to question the initial
>>>premise regarding the legality of secession.
>>>
>>>- Gary Charbonneau
>>
>>I will assume the premise because I believe it to be so. However, this is
>>not a "highly peculiar anomaly". If it is, then how do you explain the
>>presence of the various military bases the U.S. has today in France,
>>England, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
>>
>>We are there at the invitation of those countries or as part of an
>>alliance. If the host country no longer desires or has need of our
>>military presence, would they not be justified in requesting that we
>>leave? And would they not be justified in reacting in a hostile manner if
>>we refused? In my opinion, and in the eyes of the world, yes they would.
>
>agreements which the United States has with the host countries. There
>would be no question of permanent ownership of the base by the United
>States, but only of its occupation for some stated or indefinite
>period of time.
>
>Fort Sumter was not in Charleston Harbor because of some treaty between the
>United States and South Carolina, under which South Carolina specified that
>the United States was allowed to build a fort in Charleston Harbor, and to
>retain it only so long as South Carolina wished it to remain there. Fort
>Sumter was there because the United States has the right to build military
>bases in the territory of the United States (subject to certain obvious legal
>requirements such as purchase or ownership of land).
>
Sumter was there because of a treaty between the United States and South
Carolina. That treaty was the constitution, which required the U.S.
government to provide for the common defense. But as of Dec. 20, 1860
South Carolina had seceded from the union and, whether the U.S. government
recognized it or not, was a sovereign nation, therby making that treaty
null and void.
>Your analogy to an American base in Germany is not correct. A more
>appropriate analogy would be to a German military base in Germany.
>
Alright, using your logic, I'll substitute occupied West Berlin. Did not
the U.S. and Russia almost go to war over the blockade, and attempted
re-supply of West Berlin in 1947? Russia backed down, the Confederacy did
not.
>- Gary Charbonneau
>
gary charbonneau
In article <3206e184....@snews.zippo.com>,
Brian Hampton <rai...@chickasaw.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:44:17 -0500, "James F. Epperson"
><eppe...@math.uah.edu> wrote:
>
>>For one thing, what was the "intolerable abuse of powers" that existed?
>>I have asked this question about a zillion times, and I have yet to get
>>any kind of rational answer.
<snip>
>From my point of view, taking out the emotional baggage bound up in
>the issue involved, the Federal government's continued refusal to
>enforce laws legally enacted by majority would at the very least be a
>reason to start considering secession.
What laws are you referring to? The only law that I can think of that
you might be referring to is the Fugitive Slave Act. The Federal
government had certainly not refused to enforce it prior to Lincoln's
inauguration. Secessionists argued that the South should secede because
Lincoln would not enforce it. However, Lincoln had not said that he
wouldn't enforce it, and the Republican platform did not call for
non-enforcement. As far as the Federal government is concerned, I think
we're not talking about an actual "continued refusal," but about
allegations of a hypothetical future refusal.
>In the face of what other
>state governments were doing to further the Southern states' problems
>regarding their property, a very rational person might get the idea it
>is not in these states' best interests to remain within the Union.
True, but saying that something is not in one's best interest is
not logically equivalent to saying that one has been the victim
of an intolerable abuse of power. Moreover, any real or fancied
abuses carried out by "other state governments" cannot be blamed
on the Federal government. By withdrawing from the Federal government,
the Southern states were abandoning whatever leverage they had over the
state governments of the North. This makes it questionable whether
"a very rational person" could indeed say that it was not in the best
interests of the South to remain in the Union. The Federal
government could mandate the return of fugitive slaves from one state of the
Union to another. How could it mandate their return to a foreign
country?
- Gary Charbonneau
gary charbonneau
In article <3206e221....@snews.zippo.com>,
Brian Hampton <rai...@chickasaw.com> wrote:
>On 2 Aug 1996 18:19:53 GMT, char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary
>charbonneau) wrote:
>
>>In the passage quoted above, Madison objects to the theory, advanced by
>>South Carolina secessionists of the 1830's, that secession is an inherent
>>legal right of states, whose exercise is not contingent upon the existence
>>of differences, petty or otherwise.
>
>taken as a whole. As such, one cannot ignore that final line; I do
>not believe Madison would have written it had he not intended to. It
>is an integral part of the whole.
I'm not sure I understand the nature of your disagreement. Madison
is quite clear in his meaning. A state may not secede merely because it
wants to. It has the right to do so in the face of intolerable abuses
of power -- but that's simply a restatement of the _moral_ right of
revolution, not an assertion of a _legal_ right of secession.
>>You are correct that the differences between the sections in 1860
>>were not petty. That is not the same thing, however, as saying that
>>one section was engaged in "intolerable abuse" (Madison's criterion)
>>of the other. There were political differences between the sections.
>
>No, there was a great deal more than simple political differences as
>the Declarations of Secession quite vividly point out. The abuses of
>the Federal government were not necessarily in and of themselves
>enough to provoke secession. However, in the face of the new leader
>of that Federal government, who, it could easily be perceived, had in
>mind continuing such abuses if not expanding them, secession became a
>little more viable in many people's minds. Continue facing such
>abuses or be done with it?
As I have indicated in another post, it was not a matter of "continuing"
abuses by the Federal government, since such abuses had not yet occurred.
It was a case of justifying secession by pointing to abuses which had
not yet actually happened, but which might or might not happen in the
future. In other words, secession was the "pre-emptive counterrevolution"
of which James M. McPherson speaks.
- Gary Charbonneau
Ron Lenert
In article <4u5gg3$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<Snip>
>>Assume the premise that secession were legal. It resulted in a situation in
>>which South Carolina and the Confederacy, although legally independent,
>>found themselves containing pockets of what was indisputedly the property of
>>a foreign government. This is a highly peculiar anomaly. The most
>>logical way of accounting for the anomaly is to question the initial
>>premise regarding the legality of secession.
>>
>>- Gary Charbonneau
>
>I will assume the premise because I believe it to be so. However, this is
>not a "highly peculiar anomaly". If it is, then how do you explain the
>presence of the various military bases the U.S. has today in France,
>England, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
>
>We are there at the invitation of those countries or as part of an
>alliance. If the host country no longer desires or has need of our
>military presence, would they not be justified in requesting that we
>leave? And would they not be justified in reacting in a hostile manner if
>we refused? In my opinion, and in the eyes of the world, yes they would.
Like the U.S. Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for example?
System Janitor
Here's something I composed but failed to post...
I said:
* >The North was not honoring the fourth article of the Constitution,
* >which South Carolina claimed was ``so material to the compact [Consti-
* >tution], that without it that compact would not have been made.''
gary charbonneau (I hope) said:
* The reference here is, I presume, to Article IV, Section 4:
No, I think is is to Article IV, Section 2:
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation
therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be
delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may
be due.
* The actual encouragement of servile insurrection was not widespread.
I think the Southerners generally considered any phamplets, mailings,
pro-abolitionist leanings or anything considered anti-slavery
to be encouragement of servile insurrection. So, it didn't have to
be John Brown for them to call it insurrectionist.
* The demand that _insurrectionist_ propaganda must be suppressed seemed
* to lead inevitably to the demand that _abolitionist_ propaganda might be
* suppressed, since the two were considered one and the same.
-Mike
gary charbonneau
In article <4u9835$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>>Fort Sumter was not in Charleston Harbor because of some treaty between the
>>United States and South Carolina, under which South Carolina specified that
>>the United States was allowed to build a fort in Charleston Harbor, and to
>>retain it only so long as South Carolina wished it to remain there. Fort
>>Sumter was there because the United States has the right to build military
>>bases in the territory of the United States (subject to certain obvious legal
>>requirements such as purchase or ownership of land).
>
>Sumter was there because of a treaty between the United States and South
>Carolina. That treaty was the constitution, which required the U.S.
>government to provide for the common defense.
Who signed this treaty on behalf of the United States? No one.
That's because it was not a treaty between the United States and South
Carolina. It was a law setting up a new form of government for the United
States.
>But as of Dec. 20, 1860
>South Carolina had seceded from the union and, whether the U.S. government
>recognized it or not, was a sovereign nation, therby making that treaty
>null and void.
The "treaty" contained no provision for one party to declare it null
and void. If one party nevertheless proceeded to do so, why should not
the other parties had every right to consider this a violation of the
"treaty"? If the British were to have declared the Treaty of Paris
(ending the Revolutionary War) null and void, would that have given them
the legal right to reclaim South Carolina?
>
>>Your analogy to an American base in Germany is not correct. A more
>>appropriate analogy would be to a German military base in Germany.
>>
>
>Alright, using your logic, I'll substitute occupied West Berlin. Did not
>the U.S. and Russia almost go to war over the blockade, and attempted
>re-supply of West Berlin in 1947? Russia backed down, the Confederacy did
>not.
How does this in any way "use my logic?" Instead of "occupied West Berlin",
substitute "Munich". Unless, in my ignorance, I radically misunderstand
the nature of German federalism, I do not think that the German government
requires a treaty with Bavaria to build a barracks in Munich. Nor do I
think that Bavaria has the legal authority under some "treaty" to demand
that the German government vacate such a barracks.
- Gary Charbonneau
gary charbonneau
In article <hubcap.839445309@hubcap>,
System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>Here's something I composed but failed to post...
>
>I said:
> * >The North was not honoring the fourth article of the Constitution,
> * >which South Carolina claimed was ``so material to the compact [Consti-
> * >tution], that without it that compact would not have been made.''
>
>gary charbonneau (I hope) said:
> * The reference here is, I presume, to Article IV, Section 4:
>
>No, I think is is to Article IV, Section 2:
>
> No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof,
> escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation
> therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be
> delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may
> be due.
That's what I discovered when I subsequently checked the text of the
declaration. However, I was then puzzled by what appeared to your reference
to it in the context of slit throats. Hindering the return of runaways and
advocating the slitting of throats would seem to be acts of quite a
different nature.
- Gary Charbonneau
paul rodi
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>In article <4u9835$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>
>>>Fort Sumter was not in Charleston Harbor because of some treaty between the
>>>United States and South Carolina, under which South Carolina specified that
>>>the United States was allowed to build a fort in Charleston Harbor, and to
>>>retain it only so long as South Carolina wished it to remain there. Fort
>>>Sumter was there because the United States has the right to build military
>>>bases in the territory of the United States (subject to certain obvious legal
>>>requirements such as purchase or ownership of land).
>>
>>Sumter was there because of a treaty between the United States and South
>>Carolina. That treaty was the constitution, which required the U.S.
>>government to provide for the common defense.
>
>Who signed this treaty on behalf of the United States? No one.
>That's because it was not a treaty between the United States and South
>Carolina. It was a law setting up a new form of government for the United
>States.
>
According to Webster's dictionary a treaty is "an agreement between
states; a pact". So, yes the constitution was a treaty. It was signed by
all the states in the form of ratification. It was a "pact" between the
government and the state of South Carolina.
>>But as of Dec. 20, 1860
>>South Carolina had seceded from the union and, whether the U.S. government
>>recognized it or not, was a sovereign nation, therby making that treaty
>>null and void.
>
>The "treaty" contained no provision for one party to declare it null
>and void. If one party nevertheless proceeded to do so, why should not
>the other parties had every right to consider this a violation of the
>"treaty"? If the British were to have declared the Treaty of Paris
>(ending the Revolutionary War) null and void, would that have given them
>the legal right to reclaim South Carolina?
>
The "treaty" also contained no provision for one party NOT to declare it
null and void. That question was not answered fully until Appomattox. In
South Carolina's, and the rest of the Confederacy's eyes, the federal
government had already broken the "treaty".
>>
>>>Your analogy to an American base in Germany is not correct. A more
>>>appropriate analogy would be to a German military base in Germany.
>>>
>>
>>Alright, using your logic, I'll substitute occupied West Berlin. Did not
>>the U.S. and Russia almost go to war over the blockade, and attempted
>>re-supply of West Berlin in 1947? Russia backed down, the Confederacy did
>>not.
>
>How does this in any way "use my logic?" Instead of "occupied West Berlin",
>substitute "Munich". Unless, in my ignorance, I radically misunderstand
>the nature of German federalism, I do not think that the German government
>requires a treaty with Bavaria to build a barracks in Munich. Nor do I
>think that Bavaria has the legal authority under some "treaty" to demand
>that the German government vacate such a barracks.
>
>- Gary Charbonneau
The German government would require a treaty if Bavaria is a foreign
country. In South Carolina's eyes, she was a foreign government and was
within her rights to request that the government in Washington vacate Fort
Sumter. When those requests were ignored, she did what any sovereign would
have done.
gary charbonneau
In article <4ub1bh$d...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>According to Webster's dictionary a treaty is "an agreement between
>states; a pact". So, yes the constitution was a treaty. It was signed by
>all the states in the form of ratification. It was a "pact" between the
>government and the state of South Carolina.
And again I ask: Who signed this pact on behalf of the government?
No one.
<snip>
>The "treaty" also contained no provision for one party NOT to declare it
>null and void.
And is it customary for treaties to contain an implicit provision allowing
for their own violation? In such a case, why bother with treaties?
>That question was not answered fully until Appomattox. In
>South Carolina's, and the rest of the Confederacy's eyes, the federal
>government had already broken the "treaty".
Yes and no. It would be more correct to say that, in the eyes of South
Carolina and the rest of the Confederacy, the federal government was
_going to_ break the "treaty" once Lincoln took control of the executive
branch. The argument of many of the conditional Unionists was that,
although Lincoln probably _would_ violate the "treaty", there were no moral
grounds for secession until he had actually done so. In the case of South
Carolina and the other Lower South states, this advice was clearly
disregarded. They seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated.
It is true that there were arguments about "treaty violations" which had
occurred prior to Lincoln's inaugural. The strongest of those arguments
centered around Northern resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act. However,
no Northern state (not even the most radical, Massachusetts), ever went
so far as to declare the Fugitive Slave Act, or the Constitutional provision
for the return of fugitive slaves, to be null and void. The personal
liberty laws mostly sought to extend to alleged fugitives legal protections
similar to those granted to accused criminals (if you claimed that
a person was your fugitive slave, you had to be prepared to prove it),
and in general made enforcement of the act more difficult but not
impossible. But please note that claims of "treaty violations" involving
the Fugitive Slave Act did not involve alleged violations of the "treaty"
by the Federal government, but rather by _state_ governments. The Federal
government was the enforcer of the "treaty."
Other arguments about "treaty violations" were more forced. Here's
one: Lincoln's election was a violation of the Constitution because
some Northern states allowed blacks to vote. Instead of setting
aside the black votes, the entire electoral votes of any state which permitted
black voting should be set aside. Good argument?
Many Southerners zestfully advocated violating the spirit and/or letter
of certain provisions of the "treaty" when necessary to protect their
interests -- Art. IV. Sec. 3 para 2, Art. VI para 2, and Art. I of the
Amendments to the "treaty" all come to mind. The assertion, therefore, that
the "treaty" was null and void because of Northern violations smacks of a
certain amount of chutzpah. The assertion that the treaty could be
declared null and void by one of the parties to it, even if it had not
been violated by any of the other parties, is an argument of quite a
different order from one based on a claim of violations.
<snip>
>The German government would require a treaty if Bavaria is a foreign
>country. In South Carolina's eyes, she was a foreign government and was
>within her rights to request that the government in Washington vacate Fort
>Sumter. When those requests were ignored, she did what any sovereign would
>have done.
Does Bavaria have a right, under German law, to consider itself a foreign
country "in its eyes"?
- Gary Charbonneau
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ub1bh$d...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>That's because it was not a treaty between the United States and South
>>Carolina. It was a law setting up a new form of government for the United
>>States.
>>
>
>states; a pact". So, yes the constitution was a treaty. It was signed by
>all the states in the form of ratification. It was a "pact" between the
>government and the state of South Carolina.
No state government ratified the Constitution. Conventions of the people
within the various states ratified the document. This was purposely done by
the Founding Fathers to exclude state governments from the process as much as
possible, and it significance was not lost on the antifederalists, who saw the
phrase "we the people" as a direct rebuff against the notion of a compact of
sovereign states. Sam Adams and Patrick Henry had notable quotes on this
subject, which my memory cannot, alas, reproduce.
gary charbonneau
In article <4ud41n$s...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>>And again I ask: Who signed this pact on behalf of the government?
>>No one.
>>
>The president when, in his oath of office, he swears to "uphold, protect
>and defend the Constitution of the United States".
That's an answer, only not an answer to the question being put to you. Who
signed the Constitution on behalf of the United States?
And if you are arguing that secession was justified because Lincoln
had violated his oath of office, let me remind you (just one more time,
if I might) that seven states seceded before Lincoln ever took
that oath.
>>>The "treaty" also contained no provision for one party NOT to declare it
>>>null and void.
>>
>>And is it customary for treaties to contain an implicit provision allowing
>>for their own violation? In such a case, why bother with treaties?
>>
>Why can you, as a unionist, say that it contains an implicit provision
>that it can not be broken, but I as a secessionist, can not say that it
>contains an implicit provision that it can be broken?
Because then it would be extremely silly to justify secession on the grounds
that it had been broken. It contains an implicit provision
that it may be broken, right? And why bother with all this stuff about
the president swearing to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution?
The Constitution contains an implicit provision that he may violate
the Constitution, correct? Or is this an implicit right reserved to
states only?
>The United States government has broken treaties whenever it suited it's
>own needs. Just ask the Cheyenne, or the Sioux, or the Apache, Cherokee,
>etc.
But those treaties, like all treaties, contained implicit provisions that
they could be broken, right? Or is your argument that the Southern
states could secede because the government had violated treaties with
the Indians? Strange argument....
<snip>
>If the Federal government, as the enforcer of the treaty, does nothing to
>resolve these disputes between the state governments, then it is guilty of
>not "providing for domestic tranquility" as it pledges to do in the
>preamble to the constitution.
The argument does nothing to buttress your case. I think you have just
allowed the Federal government's right to resolve that dispute between the
Northern and Southern states known by some as the "Civil War."
>>Other arguments about "treaty violations" were more forced. Here's
>>one: Lincoln's election was a violation of the Constitution because
>>some Northern states allowed blacks to vote. Instead of setting
>>aside the black votes, the entire electoral votes of any state which
>>permitted black voting should be set aside. Good argument?
>>
>So, what you're saying here is states rights is a valid position when it
>applies to the North, but it's not a valid position when it applies to the
>South.
Nope. I'm saying:
(1) That Southerners were inconsistent advocates of states rights. They
generally had no problem with Taney's _obiter_, in _Dred Scott_, that a
state had no right to allow citizenship to blacks. A reasonable reading
reading of the Constitution suggests that it gives states the rights to
determine their own citizenship requirements. I'm also saying:
(2) That it is particularly egregious to make the argument that, if
_one_ black were allowed to vote in a Northern state, the ballots
of hundreds of thousands of white voters in the same state should be
disregarded. Why not simply disregard the one black vote?
<snip>
>>Does Bavaria have a right, under German law, to consider itself a foreign
>>country "in its eyes"?
>>
>>- Gary Charbonneau
>
>Not knowing German law I can't say definitively. I will say this, South
>Carolina and the rest of the Confederate States, after petioning the
>government for "redress of grievances", and finding that those petitions
>fell on deaf ears, called a convention of her PEOPLE and that convention
>voted to break away and establish their own government.
Now that you've said that, explain to me why the government any longer
had to pay any attention to petitions for redress of grievances? Didn't
the Gag Rule, instituted at the behest of Southerners in violation
of the spirit of the First Amendment, constitute a precedent that
petitions for redress of grievances could in the future be disregarded
without consideration by the government?
>They had no desire
>to overthrow the government of the United States and impose their will on
>the Northern states.
No? Then why did they threaten to secede if Lincoln were elected? Wasn't
that political blackmail designed precisely to "impose their will on
the Northern states"? Why did a few of the more outre secessionists
make the silly argument that Northern votes for Lincoln should be set aside
in order to allow Breckinridge (who had garnered only half of Lincoln's
popular vote) to claim victory? Was this not also a claim of a right to
"impose their will on the Northern states"? Why did the conditional
Unionists draw up lists of non-negotiable demands and state that, if those
demands were not met, the South would secede? Was this not also designed to
"impose their will on the Northern states"?
>Yet that's exactly what the Northern states did to
>the South.
You see? The two of us _can_ agree on something after all.
- Gary Charbonneau
James F. Epperson
[I have changed the thread header to remove Mark's name and reflect the
subject matter]
On 9 Aug 1996, paul rodi wrote:
[snips]
> There never was an implicit right to violate the Constitution, but, there
> was an implicit right for one party to be able to leave if they felt
> strongly enough that they had been wronged. That was not a violation of
> the Constitution.
In your opinion. In Mr. Madison's opinion (he wrote the document,
remember) it would have been.
[snips]
> In the Constitution the right to resolve differences between the states is
> with the Supreme Court, not by armed invasion.
Good point. Why didn't the secessionist use this avenue instead of
taking a path that they had good reason to believe would lead to war?
Lincoln did not resort to armed invasion until the United States flag had
been fired upon for a second time.
[snips]
> OK, here we agree. Throw out the questionable votes. But given the
> passions of the times(and still today given the discussions in this
> group)is it not reasonable for the South to have thought, if they cheated
> on those votes, how many others are fraudulent?
So allowing blacks to vote is "cheating"? That is what Gary is talking
about here: Some of the states complained that Lincoln was elected by
letting blacks vote, ergo his election was somehow illegal or immoral.
[snips]
> I have checked through all the books I have and can find no reference to
> the Gag Rule. Admittedly, the large part of my collection is on the
> military aspects of the war. I would appreciate some titles (balanced
> points of view) so that I can discuss this knowledgeably.
A recent book is ARGUING ABOUT SLAVERY. In brief, the Gag Rule
controversy came up in the 1830's, when several Northern (Massachusetts?)
groups sent petitions to Congress asking that slavery be abolished,
especially in DC, where Congress did have the authority. The House of
Representatives went through a lengthy argument over the issue of whether
these petitions could even be =heard=. The essential nature of the
Southern argument was that any criticism of slavery should not be allowed
to be heard. Former President John Quincy Adams, now a Congressman from
Massachusetts, was a prominent figure in the Gag Rule conroversy.
paul rodi
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>In article <4ub1bh$d...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>According to Webster's dictionary a treaty is "an agreement between
>>states; a pact". So, yes the constitution was a treaty. It was signed by
>>all the states in the form of ratification. It was a "pact" between the
>>government and the state of South Carolina.
>
>No one.
>
The president when, in his oath of office, he swears to "uphold, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States".
><snip>
>
>>The "treaty" also contained no provision for one party NOT to declare it
>>null and void.
>
>And is it customary for treaties to contain an implicit provision allowing
>for their own violation? In such a case, why bother with treaties?
>
Why can you, as a unionist, say that it contains an implicit provision
that it can not be broken, but I as a secessionist, can not say that it
contains an implicit provision that it can be broken?
The United States government has broken treaties whenever it suited it's
own needs. Just ask the Cheyenne, or the Sioux, or the Apache, Cherokee,
etc.
>>That question was not answered fully until Appomattox. In
If the Federal government, as the enforcer of the treaty, does nothing to
resolve these disputes between the state governments, then it is guilty of
not "providing for domestic tranquility" as it pledges to do in the
preamble to the constitution.
>Other arguments about "treaty violations" were more forced. Here's
>one: Lincoln's election was a violation of the Constitution because
>some Northern states allowed blacks to vote. Instead of setting
>aside the black votes, the entire electoral votes of any state which permitted
>black voting should be set aside. Good argument?
>
So, what you're saying here is states rights is a valid position when it
applies to the North, but it's not a valid position when it applies to the
South.
>Many Southerners zestfully advocated violating the spirit and/or letter
>of certain provisions of the "treaty" when necessary to protect their
>interests -- Art. IV. Sec. 3 para 2, Art. VI para 2, and Art. I of the
>Amendments to the "treaty" all come to mind. The assertion, therefore, that
>the "treaty" was null and void because of Northern violations smacks of a
>certain amount of chutzpah. The assertion that the treaty could be
>declared null and void by one of the parties to it, even if it had not
>been violated by any of the other parties, is an argument of quite a
>different order from one based on a claim of violations.
>
><snip>
>
>>The German government would require a treaty if Bavaria is a foreign
>>country. In South Carolina's eyes, she was a foreign government and was
>>within her rights to request that the government in Washington vacate Fort
>>Sumter. When those requests were ignored, she did what any sovereign would
>>have done.
>
>Does Bavaria have a right, under German law, to consider itself a foreign
>country "in its eyes"?
>
>- Gary Charbonneau
Not knowing German law I can't say definitively. I will say this, South
Carolina and the rest of the Confederate States, after petioning the
government for "redress of grievances", and finding that those petitions
fell on deaf ears, called a convention of her PEOPLE and that convention
voted to break away and establish their own government. They had no desire
to overthrow the government of the United States and impose their will on
the Northern states. Yet that's exactly what the Northern states did to
the South.
efr...@cc.memphis.edu
New hand Paul Rodi asked:
>>So, what you're saying here is states rights is a valid position when it
>>applies to the North, but it's not a valid position when it applies to the
>>South.
And old hand Gary Charbonneau replied:
> Nope. I'm saying:
>
> (1) That Southerners were inconsistent advocates of states rights. They
> generally had no problem with Taney's _obiter_, in _Dred Scott_, that a
> state had no right to allow citizenship to blacks. A reasonable reading
> reading of the Constitution suggests that it gives states the rights to
> determine their own citizenship requirements. I'm also saying:
>
> (2) That it is particularly egregious to make the argument that, if
> _one_ black were allowed to vote in a Northern state, the ballots
> of hundreds of thousands of white voters in the same state should be
> disregarded. Why not simply disregard the one black vote?
I can see it now, the exclusion of votes because one
of the voters had a single drop of "black" blood.
Ed "must be powerful stuff" Frank
paul rodi
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>In article <4ud41n$s...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>
>>>And again I ask: Who signed this pact on behalf of the government?
>>>No one.
>>>
>>The president when, in his oath of office, he swears to "uphold, protect
>>and defend the Constitution of the United States".
>
>That's an answer, only not an answer to the question being put to you. Who
>signed the Constitution on behalf of the United States?
>
>And if you are arguing that secession was justified because Lincoln
>had violated his oath of office, let me remind you (just one more time,
>if I might) that seven states seceded before Lincoln ever took
>that oath.
>
Constitution was an agreement between each of the states and as such, 1, 2
,or 11 could leave to form their own new agreement. Then the Federal
Government had no right to try by force of arms to force those states
wishing to leave back into the Union. And yes I know that those states
seceded before Lincoln's inauguration.
>>>>The "treaty" also contained no provision for one party NOT to declare it
>>>>null and void.
>>>
>>>And is it customary for treaties to contain an implicit provision allowing
>>>for their own violation? In such a case, why bother with treaties?
>>>
>>Why can you, as a unionist, say that it contains an implicit provision
>>that it can not be broken, but I as a secessionist, can not say that it
>>contains an implicit provision that it can be broken?
>
>Because then it would be extremely silly to justify secession on the grounds
>that it had been broken. It contains an implicit provision
>that it may be broken, right? And why bother with all this stuff about
>the president swearing to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution?
>The Constitution contains an implicit provision that he may violate
>the Constitution, correct? Or is this an implicit right reserved to
>states only?
>
There never was an implicit right to violate the Constitution, but, there
was an implicit right for one party to be able to leave if they felt
strongly enough that they had been wronged. That was not a violation of
the Constitution.
>>The United States government has broken treaties whenever it suited it's
>>own needs. Just ask the Cheyenne, or the Sioux, or the Apache, Cherokee,
>>etc.
>
>But those treaties, like all treaties, contained implicit provisions that
>they could be broken, right? Or is your argument that the Southern
>states could secede because the government had violated treaties with
>the Indians? Strange argument....
>
No, not all treaties have implicit provisions that they may be broken. I
have never said that. What I have said is there was no implicit provision
that one or any of the states could not leave the union if they felt they
had strong enough grounds.
><snip>
>
>>If the Federal government, as the enforcer of the treaty, does nothing to
>>resolve these disputes between the state governments, then it is guilty of
>>not "providing for domestic tranquility" as it pledges to do in the
>>preamble to the constitution.
>
>The argument does nothing to buttress your case. I think you have just
>allowed the Federal government's right to resolve that dispute between the
>Northern and Southern states known by some as the "Civil War."
>
In the Constitution the right to resolve differences between the states is
with the Supreme Court, not by armed invasion.
>>>Other arguments about "treaty violations" were more forced. Here's
>>>one: Lincoln's election was a violation of the Constitution because
>>>some Northern states allowed blacks to vote. Instead of setting
>>>aside the black votes, the entire electoral votes of any state which
>>>permitted black voting should be set aside. Good argument?
>>>
>>So, what you're saying here is states rights is a valid position when it
>>applies to the North, but it's not a valid position when it applies to the
>>South.
>
>Nope. I'm saying:
>
>(1) That Southerners were inconsistent advocates of states rights. They
>generally had no problem with Taney's _obiter_, in _Dred Scott_, that a
>state had no right to allow citizenship to blacks. A reasonable reading
>reading of the Constitution suggests that it gives states the rights to
>determine their own citizenship requirements. I'm also saying:
>
>(2) That it is particularly egregious to make the argument that, if
>_one_ black were allowed to vote in a Northern state, the ballots
>of hundreds of thousands of white voters in the same state should be
>disregarded. Why not simply disregard the one black vote?
>
OK, here we agree. Throw out the questionable votes. But given the
passions of the times(and still today given the discussions in this
group)is it not reasonable for the South to have thought, if they cheated
on those votes, how many others are fraudulent?
><snip>
>
>>>Does Bavaria have a right, under German law, to consider itself a foreign
>>>country "in its eyes"?
>>>
>>>- Gary Charbonneau
>>
>>Not knowing German law I can't say definitively. I will say this, South
>>Carolina and the rest of the Confederate States, after petioning the
>>government for "redress of grievances", and finding that those petitions
>>fell on deaf ears, called a convention of her PEOPLE and that convention
>>voted to break away and establish their own government.
>
>Now that you've said that, explain to me why the government any longer
>had to pay any attention to petitions for redress of grievances? Didn't
>the Gag Rule, instituted at the behest of Southerners in violation
>of the spirit of the First Amendment, constitute a precedent that
>petitions for redress of grievances could in the future be disregarded
>without consideration by the government?
>
I have checked through all the books I have and can find no reference to
the Gag Rule. Admittedly, the large part of my collection is on the
military aspects of the war. I would appreciate some titles (balanced
points of view) so that I can discuss this knowledgeably.
>>They had no desire
>>to overthrow the government of the United States and impose their will on
>>the Northern states.
>
>No? Then why did they threaten to secede if Lincoln were elected? Wasn't
>that political blackmail designed precisely to "impose their will on
>the Northern states"? Why did a few of the more outre secessionists
>make the silly argument that Northern votes for Lincoln should be set aside
>in order to allow Breckinridge (who had garnered only half of Lincoln's
>popular vote) to claim victory? Was this not also a claim of a right to
>"impose their will on the Northern states"? Why did the conditional
>Unionists draw up lists of non-negotiable demands and state that, if those
>demands were not met, the South would secede? Was this not also designed to
>"impose their will on the Northern states"?
>
The South never threatened to secede in order to impose its will on the
North. They simply stated a fact, if Lincoln is elected we will leave and
form our own government and there will be no more conflict between us. We
will live our lives our way, and you may live yours your way. All we wish
is to be left alone.
Yes, there were hotheads who made rash statements, on both sides. Again,
given the passions of the times this is to be expected.
>>Yet that's exactly what the Northern states did to
>>the South.
>
>You see? The two of us _can_ agree on something after all.
>
>- Gary Charbonneau
Right, we can argue this till Doomsday and neither of us will ever change.
Paul "noyankee" Rodi
Brian Blakistone
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>No state government ratified the Constitution. Conventions of the people
>within the various states ratified the document. This was purposely done by
>the Founding Fathers to exclude state governments from the process as much as
>possible, and it significance was not lost on the antifederalists, who saw the
>phrase "we the people" as a direct rebuff against the notion of a compact of
>sovereign states. Sam Adams and Patrick Henry had notable quotes on this
>subject, which my memory cannot, alas, reproduce.
Oddly, I ran across this just the other day:
"Mr. Chairman... I rose yesterday to ask a question, I thought the
meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and
America depend on this: Have they said, we the States? Have they made
a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a
confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government.
The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing--the expression,
We, _the people_, instead of, _the States of America_. I need not
take much pains to show, that the principles of this system , are
extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy,
like England-- a compact between Prince and people; with checks on the
former, to secure the liberty of the latter? is this a Confederacy,
like Holland--an association of a number of independent States, each
of which retain its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy,
wherein the people retain all their rights securely, Had these
principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this
alarming transition, from a Confederacy to a consolidated Government."
Patrick Henry, June 5, 1788
Brian
paul rodi
>subject matter]
>
>On 9 Aug 1996, paul rodi wrote:
>
>[snips]
>
>> was an implicit right for one party to be able to leave if they felt
>> strongly enough that they had been wronged. That was not a violation of
>> the Constitution.
>
>remember) it would have been.
>
However you and I are discussing this with 20/20 hindsight. At the time,
there wasn't a definitive answer as to whether a state could or could not
secede.
>[snips]
>
>> In the Constitution the right to resolve differences between the states is
>> with the Supreme Court, not by armed invasion.
>
>Good point. Why didn't the secessionist use this avenue instead of
>taking a path that they had good reason to believe would lead to war?
>Lincoln did not resort to armed invasion until the United States flag had
>been fired upon for a second time.
>
For the same reason the unionists didn't. By the time of Lincoln's
election both sides had gotten to the point where reason was not an
option. After years of feeling as though they had been mistreated by their
Northern brothers, the South said "Enough, we are leaving. Leave us alone
or we will defend ourselves." The North feeling strong from years of
growing population and industry said" You are not allowed to leave. If you
try, we will force you back at gunpoint." Neither side could or would back
down.
>[snips]
>
>> OK, here we agree. Throw out the questionable votes. But given the
>> passions of the times(and still today given the discussions in this
>> group)is it not reasonable for the South to have thought, if they cheated
>> on those votes, how many others are fraudulent?
>
>So allowing blacks to vote is "cheating"? That is what Gary is talking
>about here: Some of the states complained that Lincoln was elected by
>letting blacks vote, ergo his election was somehow illegal or immoral.
>
In the context of the times, there was no decision as to whether allowing
blacks to vote was permitted. The Constitution was vague on this, just as
it was vague on whether secession was permitted.
>[snips]
>
>> I have checked through all the books I have and can find no reference to
>> the Gag Rule. Admittedly, the large part of my collection is on the
>> military aspects of the war. I would appreciate some titles (balanced
>> points of view) so that I can discuss this knowledgeably.
>
>A recent book is ARGUING ABOUT SLAVERY. In brief, the Gag Rule
>controversy came up in the 1830's, when several Northern (Massachusetts?)
>groups sent petitions to Congress asking that slavery be abolished,
>especially in DC, where Congress did have the authority. The House of
>Representatives went through a lengthy argument over the issue of whether
>these petitions could even be =heard=. The essential nature of the
>Southern argument was that any criticism of slavery should not be allowed
>to be heard. Former President John Quincy Adams, now a Congressman from
>Massachusetts, was a prominent figure in the Gag Rule conroversy.
>
Thank you for the book suggestion. I'll see if it's available at the
library or the bookstore.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ue03v$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Fire-eating Southerners so frequently threatened to secede in order to impose
their will on the North that many people in 1860 viewed the latest fusillade of
such threats as yet another bluff, to their own detriment.
It is a myth, by the way, the all the South wished was "to be left alone."
gary charbonneau
In article <4ucpge$l...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Mark T Pitcavage <mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>No state government ratified the Constitution. Conventions of the people
>within the various states ratified the document. This was purposely done by
>the Founding Fathers to exclude state governments from the process as much as
>possible, and it significance was not lost on the antifederalists, who saw
>the phrase "we the people" as a direct rebuff against the notion of a
>compact of sovereign states. Sam Adams and Patrick Henry had notable
>quotes on this subject, which my memory cannot, alas, reproduce.
Another reason why state legislatures were excluded from the ratification
process was because -- it was said -- whatever a state legislature could
do, it could undo. In other words, ratification by a state legislature
would give that legislature the right to "unratify" at some later point,
and thus leave the Union.
The specifics of the argument are not very compelling. It is not clear
why, if ratification is carried out by state conventions (but not
legislatures), subsequent state conventions (but not legislatures) could not
unratify. The argument does, however, shed light on the original intent of
the Founding Fathers regarding the notion of a secession right. There
is a strong implication that they wished to avoid the creation of such a right.
- Gary Charbonneau
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ufefq$h...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
If we are to leave the realm of theory and go to the actual -reason- why state
legislatures were excluded, the answer is almost certainly the simple fact that
the framers thought state legislatures much less likely to ratify the
constitution than conventions.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ufh21$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>>In article <4ue03v$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>The South never threatened to secede in order to impose its will on the
>>>North. They simply stated a fact, if Lincoln is elected we will leave and
>>>form our own government and there will be no more conflict between us. We
>>>will live our lives our way, and you may live yours your way. All we wish
>>>is to be left alone.
>>
>>Fire-eating Southerners so frequently threatened to secede in order to impose
>>their will on the North that many people in 1860 viewed the latest fusillade
>>of such threats as yet another bluff, to their own detriment.
>>
>And how did they impose their will on the north?
How does blackmail always work?
>>It is a myth, by the way, the all the South wished was "to be left alone."
>>
>Did the South want to conquer the North? NO. Did the South want to force
>it's way of life on the North? NO. If it's a myth that all the South
>wanted was to be left alone, then what did they want?
The South not only wanted the American southwest, it also wanted much of the
Caribbean and Latin America. Perhaps you are unaware that one of the first
actions of the Confederacy was to invade the United States territory of New
Mexico; this hardly sounds as if the South merely wanted to be "left alone."
paul rodi
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>In article <4ue03v$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>The South never threatened to secede in order to impose its will on the
>>North. They simply stated a fact, if Lincoln is elected we will leave and
>>form our own government and there will be no more conflict between us. We
>>will live our lives our way, and you may live yours your way. All we wish
>>is to be left alone.
>
>Fire-eating Southerners so frequently threatened to secede in order to impose
>their will on the North that many people in 1860 viewed the latest fusillade of
>such threats as yet another bluff, to their own detriment.
>
And how did they impose their will on the north?
>It is a myth, by the way, the all the South wished was "to be left alone."
>
Did the South want to conquer the North? NO. Did the South want to force
it's way of life on the North? NO. If it's a myth that all the South
wanted was to be left alone, then what did they want?
>
>
>>
gary charbonneau
In article <4ue03v$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>If as you say, no one signed on behalf of the government, then the
>Constitution was an agreement between each of the states and as such, 1, 2
>,or 11 could leave to form their own new agreement.
You have now moved from a position which, as far as I know, no secessionist
actually held (that the Constitution is an agreement between the states and the
Federal government), to one which was quite common: The Constitution is
an agreement among the states. But there is nothing necessarily
secessionist about the latter view. The fact that the original states entered
into such an arrangement voluntarily did not necessarily imply that any of
them could leave the arrangement unilaterally; in fact, I think it would
be highly unlikely that it did imply that.
>Then the Federal
>Government had no right to try by force of arms to force those states
>wishing to leave back into the Union.
This would indeed be true if a secession right existed. Whether such
a right existed is of course the point at issue. The Constitution
is silent on the matter. The essence of the secessionist position
is that "Whatever is not explicitly forbidden is permitted." This,
as far as the Constitution is concerned, is largely true. The essence of
the unionist position is that "A deal's a deal." This is also largely true,
and depends on the inherent nature of "deals"; the Constitution did not have
to specify that it was binding, because "deals" are considered binding
absent specific clauses to the contrary stating the conditions under which
they are not to be considered binding. That's the whole point of
entering into deals.
These two positions were sharply at odds. An appeal to the text of the
Constitution could not resolve the conflict, and appeals to the
Constitution's legislative history were inconclusive -- though I think
that the "a deal's a deal" position had (and has) the stronger case.
<snip>
>There never was an implicit right to violate the Constitution, but, there
>was an implicit right for one party to be able to leave if they felt
>strongly enough that they had been wronged. That was not a violation of
>the Constitution.
I would qualify this statement in two crucial ways:
1. The implicit right of a party to leave is not a legal right, but
a moral right.
2. A party cannot appeal to this right merely because they "feel strongly
enough that they have been wronged." It's not a matter of the
psychology of the alleged victim. Otherwise you'd be saying that,
if the Federal government (or the other states) did "x", a party would
have the right to leave if it felt strongly that it was wronged by
"x", but would would _not_ have the right to leave if its feelings
of being wronged by "x" were more subdued, even if "x" were the
same in both cases. Really, all you can say is that, if a party does
not feel strongly about the harm caused to it by "x", it is unlikely to
regardless of whether the existence of "x" would give it a moral
right to leave.
The moral right to secession is a special case of the moral right to
revolution. It is dependent, not on whether a party "feels" that it has
been wronged, but on whether it actually has been wronged, and I think
that is quite a different matter. How the party feels about "x" is
not important. What is important is the nature of "x". And what is
important about "x", I think, are two things:
1. Is "x" permitted under the Constitution (i.e., is it a violation of
the alleged victim's _legal_ rights)?
2. Even if "x" is Constitutional, is it a violation of the alleged victim's
_moral_ rights?
<snip>
>No, not all treaties have implicit provisions that they may be broken. I
>have never said that. What I have said is there was no implicit provision
>that one or any of the states could not leave the union if they felt they
>had strong enough grounds.
Again, it's not a matter of their "feeling" that they had strong enough
grounds. Thay actually _had to have_ strong enough grounds.
<snip>
>In the Constitution the right to resolve differences between the states is
>with the Supreme Court, not by armed invasion.
True. However, this posed a special problem for a seceding state: To
concede that the Supreme Court still had jurisdiction in the matter
was already to concede that secession was illegal. If it were legal,
the Supreme Court would no longer have jurisdiction.
>>Nope. I'm saying:
>>(2) That it is particularly egregious to make the argument that, if
>>_one_ black were allowed to vote in a Northern state, the ballots
>>of hundreds of thousands of white voters in the same state should be
>>disregarded. Why not simply disregard the one black vote?
>>
>OK, here we agree. Throw out the questionable votes. But given the
>passions of the times(and still today given the discussions in this
>group)is it not reasonable for the South to have thought, if they cheated
>on those votes, how many others are fraudulent?
As far as I'm aware, Southerners did not claim that the votes of
Northern whites for Lincoln were fraudulent.
- Gary Charbonneau
Justin M Sanders
paul rodi (noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> How was the South trying to force the acceptance of slavery on those who
> did not wish to accept it? Did the South tell New York, or Pennsylvania,
> or Massachusetts that they had to have slaves? NO. Did they tell the South
> that they had to be rid of their slaves? YES. Who was trying to impose
> their will on whom?
Southerner generally wanted to have unfettered right of transit through
free states with their slaves. When the free states began to tighten up,
or out-right prohibit bringing slaves into their borders temporarily, that
brought quite a lot of protest from Southern politicians. Additionally,
Southerners frequently called upon Northern states to squelch any
abolitionist groups or demonstrations in their borders. Southerners also
wanted the Federal government to refuse to even receive petitions which
requested abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. So, yes,
Southern politicians did tell New York, Pennsylvania, etc., that they had
to tolerate slavery and that they should not tolerate any discussions of
its termination.
--
Justin M. Sanders "I shot an arrow into the air. It fell
Dept. of Physics to earth I know not where." --Henry
Univ. of South Alabama Wadsworth Longfellow confessing
jsan...@jaguar1.usouthal.edu to a sad ignorance of ballistics.
gary charbonneau
In article <4ufjlj$m...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>This is my point, secession was not expressly forbidden. The war was
>fought to settle that question.
The war couldn't possibly settle the question. It could only settle
the issue of who, among the the two parties to the question, was the
stronger. Clearly the matter is not settled in your mind. You
do not accept that, because the North won, the North was right.
The question of whether a secession right "existed" (in the sense of
being congruent with the original intent of the Founding Fathers and
with a correct understanding of the Constitution) is independent of who won
the war.
<snip>
>So all the thousands of Union dead died to defend a "deal"? I hope that
>they're not spinning too fast in their graves when they hear you say that.
There is absolutely no question whatsoever that they fought to defend "the
deal." Certainly they did not initiate the war to free the slaves; that
did not become official policy until the war was well under way
In fact, if you look at much of the Southern rhetoric in the
immediate antebellum period, you will find that much of that rhetoric
defends "the deal" as well. For example, you will find people saying that,
if the abolitionists don't shut up, the South will secede. Ergo, the
_abolitionists_ (not Southerners) are the real disunionists. Therefore,
they must be bad people (parenthetical note: Garrison and his immediate
allies really were disunionists, but that's not relevant to the point
here). Most Southerners tended to defend "the deal" almost up to the point
when they decided to break it. And when they broke it, they often said that
were entitled to do so because the North had already broken it,
so the deal was already off. Such an argument does not necessarily
imply an inherent right to break the deal without cause.
>You're trying to twist words here. If a party "feels" that they have been
>wronged, in their point of view they actually have been wronged.
Yes, but that's a tautology.
>If I were
>to say something personally insulting about you, you'd "feel" insulted
>because in your point of view I had insulted you. By the same token, I
>"feel" that what was said wasn't insulting, so in my point of view you
>weren't insulted.
Yes, if I thought you were insulting me, I'd think you were insulting
me. And if you didn't think you were insulting me, you wouldn't think
you were insulting me. But again that's a tautology. The question is,
what did you say, and was it or was it not in fact insulting?
If you say that I am oppressing you, it is not illegitimate to ask an
impartial observer whether I am actually oppressing you, and to expect
that he or she could arrive at a reasonable judgment. I am reminded
of a couple of lines from _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_:
Peasant: " 'Es oppressing me!"
King Arthur: "Oh, shut up!"
Jim Epperson asks, now and again, for someone to explain how the
South was being oppressed. The answers he usually gets refer to
reasons why Southerners "felt" they were being oppressed. I don't
think such answers address the question.
- Gary Charbonneau
Tennessee Reb
On Aug 08, 1996 19:42:02 in article <Rights of secession>, '"James F.
Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu>' wrote:
>> In the Constitution the right to resolve differences between the states
is
>> with the Supreme Court, not by armed invasion.
>
>taking a path that they had good reason to believe would lead to war?
>Lincoln did not resort to armed invasion until the United States flag had
>been fired upon for a second time.
I do not have references available as to the makeup, by
individuals, of the Supreme Court at the time in question.
It would be interesting to see just how many of the justices
were Southerners, or had any tendency to support Southern
points of view.
Regardless of the above, and when considered in light of just
how much attention Lincoln paid to Taney's ruling(s) on his
(Lincoln's) suspension of habeus corpus, had the Southern
States prevailed in a Supreme Court battle on any issue of
contention the practical effect of such a victory would have been
insignificant in the long run.
T. Reb
Tennessee Reb
On Aug 08, 1996 19:42:02 in article <Rights of secession>, '"James F.
Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu>' wrote:
>Lincoln did not resort to armed invasion until the United States flag had
>been fired upon for a second time.
1. The Star of the West was fired upon while trying to
re-supply a garrison of foriegn troops who were occupying
a position in which they had no right to remain.
2. Ft. Sumter was fired upon when the garrison refused
to evacuate, despite numerous opportunites to do so and
the promise of safe passage back to the U.S.
3. Lincoln justified his armed invasion of the Confederacy
through supposed acts of 'aggression" by the Confederacy,
all the while conveniently forgetting that his government
had instigated the very acts to which he was responding.
Do you really want to hash this out again?
T. Reb
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ufsck$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>By border states, I assume you are referring to Kansas, Missouri and
>Kentucky. These states were split in their loyalties, although Kansas was
>more pro-Union. So naturally the Confederacy tried to coax these states
>into her arms as did the Union, although the Union did at gunpoint.
So I guess the South "wanting to be left alone" now translates into "the South
wanted to be left alone, except that it wanted to grab the border states"?
>The territories were just that, territories. They were not yet states so
>the Confederacy was justified in trying to make her presence felt there
>also. These were motivated more by political desires than military
>desires.
The territories were the property of the United States government. Please tell
me exactly how the Confederacy was justified "in trying to make her presence
felt there also."
paul rodi
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>In article <4ue03v$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>
>>If as you say, no one signed on behalf of the government, then the
>>Constitution was an agreement between each of the states and as such, 1, 2
>>,or 11 could leave to form their own new agreement.
>
>You have now moved from a position which, as far as I know, no secessionist
>actually held (that the Constitution is an agreement between the states and the
>Federal government), to one which was quite common: The Constitution is
>an agreement among the states. But there is nothing necessarily
>secessionist about the latter view. The fact that the original states entered
>into such an arrangement voluntarily did not necessarily imply that any of
>them could leave the arrangement unilaterally; in fact, I think it would
>be highly unlikely that it did imply that.
>
>>Then the Federal
>>Government had no right to try by force of arms to force those states
>>wishing to leave back into the Union.
>
>This would indeed be true if a secession right existed. Whether such
>a right existed is of course the point at issue. The Constitution
>is silent on the matter. The essence of the secessionist position
>is that "Whatever is not explicitly forbidden is permitted." This,
>as far as the Constitution is concerned, is largely true. The essence of
>
fought to settle that question.
the unionist position is that "A deal's a deal." This is also largely
true,
>and depends on the inherent nature of "deals"; the Constitution did not have
>to specify that it was binding, because "deals" are considered binding
>absent specific clauses to the contrary stating the conditions under which
>they are not to be considered binding. That's the whole point of
>entering into deals.
>
>These two positions were sharply at odds. An appeal to the text of the
>Constitution could not resolve the conflict, and appeals to the
>Constitution's legislative history were inconclusive -- though I think
>that the "a deal's a deal" position had (and has) the stronger case.
>
So all the thousands of Union dead died to defend a "deal"? I hope that
they're not spinning too fast in their graves when they hear you say that.
You're trying to twist words here. If a party "feels" that they have been
wronged, in their point of view they actually have been wronged. If I were
to say something personally insulting about you, you'd "feel" insulted
because in your point of view I had insulted you. By the same token, I
"feel" that what was said wasn't insulting, so in my point of view you
weren't insulted.
><snip>
>
>>No, not all treaties have implicit provisions that they may be broken. I
>>have never said that. What I have said is there was no implicit provision
>>that one or any of the states could not leave the union if they felt they
>>had strong enough grounds.
>
>Again, it's not a matter of their "feeling" that they had strong enough
>grounds. Thay actually _had to have_ strong enough grounds.
>
><snip>
>
>>In the Constitution the right to resolve differences between the states is
>>with the Supreme Court, not by armed invasion.
>
>True. However, this posed a special problem for a seceding state: To
>concede that the Supreme Court still had jurisdiction in the matter
>was already to concede that secession was illegal. If it were legal,
>the Supreme Court would no longer have jurisdiction.
>
In 1860 the parties didn't have the advantage of our 130 years of
hindsight. As I said before, by this time there was no chance for any kind
of moderation. The hotheads on both sides were spoiling for a fight and
they were determined to have it.
>>>Nope. I'm saying:
>
>>>(2) That it is particularly egregious to make the argument that, if
>>>_one_ black were allowed to vote in a Northern state, the ballots
>>>of hundreds of thousands of white voters in the same state should be
>>>disregarded. Why not simply disregard the one black vote?
>>>
>>OK, here we agree. Throw out the questionable votes. But given the
>>passions of the times(and still today given the discussions in this
>>group)is it not reasonable for the South to have thought, if they cheated
>>on those votes, how many others are fraudulent?
>
>As far as I'm aware, Southerners did not claim that the votes of
>Northern whites for Lincoln were fraudulent.
>
Again, in the context of the times, if one thing you do is questionable to
me then I will naturally question anything you do.
>- Gary Charbonneau
gary charbonneau
In article <4ufsck$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>How was the South trying to force the acceptance of slavery on those who
>did not wish to accept it? Did the South tell New York, or Pennsylvania,
>or Massachusetts that they had to have slaves? NO. Did they tell the South
>that they had to be rid of their slaves? YES.
The answer, by and large, is NO, not YES. In 1860, one party platform
contained the following plank:
"4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially
the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions
[including the institution of slavery] according to its own judgment
exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection
and endurance of our political fabric depends...."
The party in question was the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln.
>Who was trying to impose their will on whom?
>
>The Kansas-Nebraska Act provided that the issue in the territories be
>decided by "popular sovereignty".
In 1860, Popular Sovereignty was unacceptable to the South. In 1860,
one party platform contained the following plank:
"1. The the Government of a Territory organized by an act of Congress
is provisional and temporary, and during its existence all citizens of
the United States have an equal right to settle with their property
[including slave property] in the Territory, without their rights,
either of person or property being destroyed or impaired by Congressional
or Territorial legislation."
The party in question was the Southern (Breckinridge) faction of the
Democratic party. Breckinridge swept the South. Popular Sovereignty was
the doctrine of Douglas, whom the South repudiated at the polls. The South
wished to impose slavery on the territories regardless of the wishes of the
inhabitants. And, I might note, the Republicans wished to impose free soil
on the territories regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants. Only the
Douglas Democrats proposed leaving it up to the inhabitants. No one proposed
leaving it strictly up to Congress, although that's what had traditionally
been done under the terms of Art. VI, Sec. 2 of the Constitution. Both
the Republicans and the Southern Democrats declared that, with regard to
slavery, the powers of Congress under Art. VI, Sec. 2 were limited by the
Fifth Amendment, though they arrived at diametrically opposite conclusions
about what the Fifth Amendment required (because the Fifth Amendment required
diametrically opposing things).
- Gary Charbonneau
Charles Ten Brink
In article <4ufh21$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>
>>It is a myth, by the way, the all the South wished was "to be left alone."
>>
that Mr. Rodi seems to think are equivalent:
>Did the South want to conquer the North? NO.
>
Well, yes, or at least the Confederacy wanted to conquer
territory held by the Federal government. Consider the
border states and the incursions into New Mexico and
Arizona.
> Did the South want to force
>it's way of life on the North? NO.
>
Many of the critical events leading up to the War did
in fact involve the attempt by Southern politicians to
impose the acceptance of slavery on those who did not
wish to accept it. Consider the gag rule and the
reversal of the Missouri Compromise by the _Scott_
decision.
> If it's a myth that all the South
>wanted was to be left alone, then what did they want?
>
Consider also that a number of Confederate politicians
indulged in the fantasy (not a new one, of course) of
imposing their way of life on an expanding southern
empire; Cuba, Mexico, Central America. This is rather
like saying that Napoleon only wished to be let alone
by Great Britain while he took over the Continent.
However, I agree that Dr. Pitcavage's statement was
a cryptic one, and I wouldn't assume that this is what
he meant by it; I hope that he will expand upon it.
Yours,
Chuck Ten Brink
--
Associate Law Librarian < He did not catch babies with a spearhead as
D'Angelo Law Library, UC * was the practice of other Vikings; for this
c-ten...@uchicago.edu > reason he was called "child-friend".
System Janitor
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>Jim Epperson asks, now and again, for someone to explain how the
>South was being oppressed. The answers he usually gets refer to
>reasons why Southerners "felt" they were being oppressed. I don't
>think such answers address the question.
Then, it is not in dispute that the Southerners felt they were
being oppressed? We're just arguing among ourselves about
whether we think they were?
We are the ``impartial observers'' who are expected to arrive at
a reasonable judgement?
If so, the answer to Jim Epperson's question will change, depending
on who you ask, since very few of us are impartial, and you'll get
different answers, depending on who you ask, about which ones of us
are reasonable. Am I? How about Chuck Ten Brink, is this a reasonable
statement?
There were nearly four million slaves, ... , living in the seceding
states who most certainly didn't want the South to be let
alone.
He's more certain than I am. Many slaves didn't ``feel'' that they
were being oppressed. We all think that slavery = oppression though,
so we disagree with those long dead slaves about what their condition
was. And we disagree with the Southerners about whether or not
they were being oppressed.
Maybe we're discovering that there's two groups (not Groups) of us.
Some care more about what 1860's era people thought about the 1860s.
Some care more about what modern people think about the 1860s.
The Southerners were being oppressed. They stated the conditions
they found oppressive. I'm unable to comprehend how their answers
could fail to address the question. It is obvious to me that many
people don't like their answer, but it is The Answer.
-Mike
paul rodi
No, the matter is clear in my mind. I can accept, and have accepted the
fact that since the North won, secession is not legal, NOW. In 1860,
there was no concrete answer one way or the other. The point I have been
trying to get across over the past week that we have been discussing this
is that I've been looking at it from the viewpoint of the pre-war era.
OTOH, you and the others who have joined on your side have been looking at
the issue from a post-war point of view. And there lies the problem.
By using the 130+ years of hindsight it's easy to say "Our side won so we
were right all along." In pre1860 America neither side was right and
neither side was wrong. There had been no absolute, carved in stone
decision that said who was right and who was wrong. It was open to
interpretation by whoever was interpereting it at the time.
I will state here and now that if the question of secession were to come
up today, whether it were South Carolina or Massachusetts, I would be one
of the first to fight for restoration of the Union, because since 1865
secession has been illegal. That fact was paid for in blood by both Blue
and Gray.
OTOH, had I been alive in 1861, I would have been one of the first to
fight for the right of the Confederacy to secede, because up to that point
in time it had not been proven to be illegal.
Paul Rodi
paul rodi
cj...@midway.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink) wrote:
>In article <4ufh21$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>>
>>>It is a myth, by the way, the all the South wished was "to be left alone."
>>>
>There is a great deal in this statement other than the two questions
>that Mr. Rodi seems to think are equivalent:
>
>>Did the South want to conquer the North? NO.
>>
>Well, yes, or at least the Confederacy wanted to conquer
>territory held by the Federal government. Consider the
>border states and the incursions into New Mexico and
>Arizona.
>
Kentucky. These states were split in their loyalties, although Kansas was
more pro-Union. So naturally the Confederacy tried to coax these states
into her arms as did the Union, although the Union did at gunpoint.
The territories were just that, territories. They were not yet states so
the Confederacy was justified in trying to make her presence felt there
also. These were motivated more by political desires than military
desires.
>> Did the South want to force
>>it's way of life on the North? NO.
>>
>Many of the critical events leading up to the War did
>in fact involve the attempt by Southern politicians to
>impose the acceptance of slavery on those who did not
>wish to accept it. Consider the gag rule and the
>reversal of the Missouri Compromise by the _Scott_
>decision.
>
How was the South trying to force the acceptance of slavery on those who
did not wish to accept it? Did the South tell New York, or Pennsylvania,
or Massachusetts that they had to have slaves? NO. Did they tell the South
that they had to be rid of their slaves? YES. Who was trying to impose
their will on whom?
The Kansas-Nebraska Act provided that the issue in the territories be
decided by "popular sovereignty".
>> If it's a myth that all the South
>>wanted was to be left alone, then what did they want?
>>
>Consider also that a number of Confederate politicians
>indulged in the fantasy (not a new one, of course) of
>imposing their way of life on an expanding southern
>empire; Cuba, Mexico, Central America. This is rather
>like saying that Napoleon only wished to be let alone
>by Great Britain while he took over the Continent.
>
While Nortern politicians dreamed of a Northern dominated United States
reahing all the way to the Pacific at the expense of and with no regards
to the concerns of the South.
Charles Ten Brink
In article <4ufsck$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>cj...@midway.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink) wrote:
>>In article <4ufh21$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is a myth, by the way, the all the South wished was "to be left alone."
>>>>
>>There is a great deal in this statement other than the two questions
>>that Mr. Rodi seems to think are equivalent:
>>
>>>Did the South want to conquer the North? NO.
>>>
>>Well, yes, or at least the Confederacy wanted to conquer
>>territory held by the Federal government. Consider the
>>border states and the incursions into New Mexico and
>>Arizona.
>>
>By border states, I assume you are referring to Kansas, Missouri and
>Kentucky. These states were split in their loyalties, although Kansas was
>more pro-Union. So naturally the Confederacy tried to coax these states
>into her arms as did the Union, although the Union did at gunpoint.
>
you had better read something about Bragg's Kentucky campaign in
the late summer and fall of 1862, which attempted to impose a new
government on the state by sheer military force. Lee's incursion
into Maryland at the same time, with an armed force of 60,000 men,
was also, I suppose, mere "coaxing".
As for the rather tired playground game of "yeah, well. . . <trembling
lip> YOU TOO!" - it's getting *really* old. You have claimed, in
effect, that the motives and actions of the Confederacy were
simon-pure. They weren't. Whining about what the Federal government
did is a diversionary tactic that doesn't address in any way the
point you claimed to be making.
>The territories were just that, territories. They were not yet states so
>the Confederacy was justified in trying to make her presence felt there
>also. These were motivated more by political desires than military
>desires.
>
This naked assertion is equally non-responsive. The fact remains
that the Confederacy did *not* simply want to be let alone, but
was vitally interested in adding territory beyond that which
it claimed had the power to secede.
>>> Did the South want to force
>>>it's way of life on the North? NO.
>>>
>>Many of the critical events leading up to the War did
>>in fact involve the attempt by Southern politicians to
>>impose the acceptance of slavery on those who did not
>>wish to accept it. Consider the gag rule and the
>>reversal of the Missouri Compromise by the _Scott_
>>decision.
>>
>How was the South trying to force the acceptance of slavery on those who
>did not wish to accept it? Did the South tell New York, or Pennsylvania,
>or Massachusetts that they had to have slaves? NO. Did they tell the South
>that they had to be rid of their slaves? YES. Who was trying to impose
>their will on whom?
>
Southern politicians forced others to accept slavery in their country,
and forbade even the discussion of ways in which that system might
be altered in accordance with a developing consensus throughout
western civilization that slavery was a bad thing. Northerners
weren't forced to own slaves; they were forced to accept their
participation in a society that protected and nurtured the
institution. Granted, this is an either/or proposition; one
side or the other must in the end "impose its way of life" on
the other. Again, that you cannot recognize the symmetry of
the situation indicates that you are more interested in
propagandizing than in understanding.
>>> If it's a myth that all the South
>>>wanted was to be left alone, then what did they want?
>>>
>>Consider also that a number of Confederate politicians
>>indulged in the fantasy (not a new one, of course) of
>>imposing their way of life on an expanding southern
>>empire; Cuba, Mexico, Central America. This is rather
>>like saying that Napoleon only wished to be let alone
>>by Great Britain while he took over the Continent.
>>
>
>While Nortern politicians dreamed of a Northern dominated United States
>reahing all the way to the Pacific at the expense of and with no regards
>to the concerns of the South.
>
Untrue, but not really worth replying to because it is, as usual,
completely unresponsive. Whatever the Northern politicians
believed or wanted doesn't change the Confederate politicians'
dreams of empire, which again give the lie to the too-often
repeated myth that "the South wanted to be let alone".
Note that we haven't even gotten into the question of who
"the South" is. There were nearly four million slaves, and
probably half a million white Unionists, living in the seceding
states who most certainly didn't want the South to be let
alone.
Goodbye,
efr...@cc.memphis.edu
Gary C offers this as an analogy to Paul R's take on the
"abuses" that caused some Southerners to want to secede:
> If you say that I am oppressing you, it is not illegitimate to ask an
> impartial observer whether I am actually oppressing you, and to expect
> that he or she could arrive at a reasonable judgment. I am reminded
> of a couple of lines from _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_:
>
> Peasant: " 'Es oppressing me!"
>
> King Arthur: "Oh, shut up!"
To which the Southern League shouts: "Now we see
the violence inherent in the system! Don't you
see it? You saw it...."
Ed "'She turned me into a newt'" Frank
RonaldB124
This is extremely cool.
Could someone E-mail me the origional message and all of the Re:'s I am
working on a summer assignment for the Civil war, and this is something
that I would like to ask questions about. I would also like to get into
discussion myself, if possible. Thanks,
Ronal...@aol.com
Randy Koch
> I do not have references available as to the makeup, by
> individuals, of the Supreme Court at the time in question.
> It would be interesting to see just how many of the justices
> were Southerners, or had any tendency to support Southern
> points of view.
>
In light of the Dred Scott decision, it seems safe to say Southern
slaveholders had the Supreme Court firmly in their corner.
Dave Smith
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
snips
>I will state here and now that if the question of secession were to come
>up today, whether it were South Carolina or Massachusetts, I would be one
>of the first to fight for restoration of the Union, because since 1865
>secession has been illegal. That fact was paid for in blood by both Blue
>and Gray.
Here I have to respectfully disagree with Paul, to a point. His
implication from above is that secession somehow became illegal as a
result of the ACW, and the South's capitulation in 1865. That just
does not make sense to me. Texas vs. White, 1868 (is that the
correct cite?) is often used as the source for secession's illegality,
but from what I know of the case, it might not on its own merits stand
up today.
I think the arguments, such as they are, still apply much as they
were presented in 1860. But the fact that the South did not carry the
day doesn't negate them, one way or the other.
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Smith "Always Store Beer in a Dark Place"
Villa Hills, Ky --- Lazarus Long
http://users.aol.com/dmsmith001/
The Cincinnati CWRT http://users.aol.com/CintiCWRT/
------------------------------------------------------------
mo...@pcis.net
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
(snip)
>So I guess the South "wanting to be left alone" now translates into "the South
>wanted to be left alone, except that it wanted to grab the border states"?
Your arguement concerning the "border states" is without merit. In
fact, one of the first acts of the Union was to "grab" Missouri by
using military force to drive out the duly elected Governor and
Legislature, and replace them with pro-union men. If the "border
states were "grabbed" by anyone, it was by the Union. The Confederacy
was simply trying to regain lost territory.
(snip)
>The territories were the property of the United States government. Please tell
>me exactly how the Confederacy was justified "in trying to make her presence
>felt there also."
This arguement pales in comparison to the invasion of the Southern
States by Union forces.
MISSOURI REBEL
REB 4 LIFE
In article <4uj92f$f...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>Your arguement concerning the "border states" is without merit. In
>>fact, one of the first acts of the Union was to "grab" Missouri by
>>using military force to drive out the duly elected Governor and
>>Legislature, and replace them with pro-union men. If the "border
>>states were "grabbed" by anyone, it was by the Union. The Confederacy
>>was simply trying to regain lost territory.
>Alas, not only is that not a very complete description of the state of
>affairs in Missouri, it ignores the fact that the Confederacy never
"lost"
>Missouri; it never had it to begin with.
Moreb's facts are just that: facts. Missouri seceeded from the Union
through the act of a legitimately elected legislative body. Your logic
is without merit, since it is reflective of the general manifesto of the
North--that none of the Southern states seceeded and that they were
still a part of the Union. Your application of this reasoning to the
situation in Missouri is just as fallacious as it would be when applied
to, say, South Carolina. South Carolina seceeded. And so did
Missouri.
>>(snip)
>>>The territories were the property of the United States government.
Please
>>>tell me exactly how the Confederacy was justified "in trying to make
her
>>>presence felt there also."
>>This arguement pales in comparison to the invasion of the Southern
>>States by Union forces.
>That is amazingly irrelevant, since the previous poster said that all the
>Confederacy wanted was to be left alone. I pointed out that the
Confederacy
>seemed to think that "being left alone" somehow included invading
territories
>indisputably belonging to the United States.
Just because you believe that the subject territories were "indisputably"
a part of the United States does not make it a fact.
> Regardless of what the Union
>did or did not do, the Confederacy manifestly wanted more than to "be
left
>alone."
And sometimes being left alone requires that you knock the hell
out of those who refuse to do so.
R4L
REB 4 LIFE
In article <4ug44l$5...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>By border states, I assume you are referring to Kansas, Missouri and
>>Kentucky. These states were split in their loyalties, although Kansas
was
>>more pro-Union. So naturally the Confederacy tried to coax these states
>>into her arms as did the Union, although the Union did at gunpoint.
>
>So I guess the South "wanting to be left alone" now translates into "the
>South wanted to be left alone, except that it wanted to grab the border
states"?
Border States? The North was trying to suppress the secession of Kentucky
and Missouri. There was no such thing as "border states". They were
either
in the CSA or the USA, regardless of semantics. Kentucky and Missouri
were Confederate states.
>>The territories were just that, territories. They were not yet states so
>>the Confederacy was justified in trying to make her presence felt there
>>also. These were motivated more by political desires than military
>>desires.
>
>The territories were the property of the United States government.
Please
>tell me exactly how the Confederacy was justified "in trying to make her
presence
>felt there also."
I suppose the representatives from Arizona in the Confederate Congress
were brought there in chains just to make this so-called land grab look
better?
R4L
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4uimdj$5...@tofu.alt.net>, <mo...@pcis.net> wrote:
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>
>(snip)
h
>>wanted to be left alone, except that it wanted to grab the border states"?
>
>fact, one of the first acts of the Union was to "grab" Missouri by
>using military force to drive out the duly elected Governor and
>Legislature, and replace them with pro-union men. If the "border
>states were "grabbed" by anyone, it was by the Union. The Confederacy
>was simply trying to regain lost territory.
Alas, not only is that not a very complete description of the state of affairs
in Missouri, it ignores the fact that the Confederacy never "lost" Missouri; it
never had it to begin with.
>
>
>(snip)
>
>>The territories were the property of the United States government. Please te
ll
>>me exactly how the Confederacy was justified "in trying to make her presence
>>felt there also."
>
>
>This arguement pales in comparison to the invasion of the Southern
>States by Union forces.
That is amazingly irrelevant, since the previous poster said that all the
Confederacy wanted was to be left alone. I pointed out that the Confederacy
seemed to think that "being left alone" somehow included invading territories
indisputably belonging to the United States. Regardless of what the Union did
paul rodi
First, the Confederacy didn't invade these territories until after the
North had invaded the Confederacy.
Second, since they were at war with the United States, and since there
were Federal forces in these territories, the Confederacy would have been
foolish to allow them to stay there in her rear and on her borders.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ujfvi$a...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>First, the Confederacy didn't invade these territories until after the
>North had invaded the Confederacy.
Don't you think you ought to check some of your dates?
>
>Second, since they were at war with the United States, and since there
>were Federal forces in these territories, the Confederacy would have been
>foolish to allow them to stay there in her rear and on her borders.
>
Yes, god knows a couple of hundred soldiers in New Mexico posed a deadly threat
to the Confederacy.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ujh7m$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
REB 4 LIFE <reb4...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4ug44l$5...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>>>By border states, I assume you are referring to Kansas, Missouri and
>>>Kentucky. These states were split in their loyalties, although Kansas
>was
>>>more pro-Union. So naturally the Confederacy tried to coax these states
>>>into her arms as did the Union, although the Union did at gunpoint.
>>
>states"?
>
>Border States? The North was trying to suppress the secession of Kentucky
>and Missouri. There was no such thing as "border states". They were
>either
>in the CSA or the USA, regardless of semantics. Kentucky and Missouri
>were Confederate states.
They were? Amazing.
>
>>>The territories were just that, territories. They were not yet states so
>>>the Confederacy was justified in trying to make her presence felt there
>>>also. These were motivated more by political desires than military
>>>desires.
>>
>>The territories were the property of the United States government.
>Please
>>tell me exactly how the Confederacy was justified "in trying to make her
>presence
>>felt there also."
>
>I suppose the representatives from Arizona in the Confederate Congress
>were brought there in chains just to make this so-called land grab look
>better?
It only takes one Confederate sympathizer from Arizona to be a "representative"
to the Confederate Congress. Do you deny that New Mexico Territory was the
property of the United States? I think it would be highly amusing to see you
try to justify the Confederacy's attempt to grab the Southwest, and justify the
"we only want to be left alone" line at the same time. Please proceed.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ujh97$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,>In article <4uj92f$f...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>>>fact, one of the first acts of the Union was to "grab" Missouri by
>>>using military force to drive out the duly elected Governor and
>>>Legislature, and replace them with pro-union men. If the "border
>>>states were "grabbed" by anyone, it was by the Union. The Confederacy
>>>was simply trying to regain lost territory.
>
>>Alas, not only is that not a very complete description of the state of
>>affairs in Missouri, it ignores the fact that the Confederacy never
>"lost" Missouri; it never had it to begin with.
>
>through the act of a legitimately elected legislative body. Your logic
>is without merit, since it is reflective of the general manifesto of the
>North--that none of the Southern states seceeded and that they were
>still a part of the Union. Your application of this reasoning to the
>situation in Missouri is just as fallacious as it would be when applied
>to, say, South Carolina. South Carolina seceeded. And so did
>Missouri.
>
First of all, the word is "secede." You'd think someone who spouts the term
all the time would eventually learn how to spell it. As for Missouri, I'd
think you'd take the opinions of the secession convention over that of the
remnants of the state legislature who fled with Jackson.
After all, Missouri held a state convention just like the rest of
the South to determine whether or not it would secede. The convention said no.
And then later it reassembled and declared the governorship vacant. Why would
you not accept the opinions of the actual secession convention? Sounds like if
someone says "yes" and someone else says "no," you're ready to take the yes and
ignore the no, no matter who says which.
>>(snip)
>
>>>>The territories were the property of the United States government.
>Please
>>>>tell me exactly how the Confederacy was justified "in trying to make
>her
>>>>presence felt there also."
>
>>>This arguement pales in comparison to the invasion of the Southern
>>>States by Union forces.
>
>>That is amazingly irrelevant, since the previous poster said that all the
>
>>Confederacy wanted was to be left alone. I pointed out that the
>Confederacy
>>seemed to think that "being left alone" somehow included invading
>territories
>>indisputably belonging to the United States.
>
>Just because you believe that the subject territories were "indisputably"
>a part of the United States does not make it a fact.
Please, I'm all ears. Explain by what possible rationale the federal
territory of New Mexico might not be a part of the United States.
Stephen Schmidt
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
>First, the Confederacy didn't invade these territories until after the
>North had invaded the Confederacy.
True, but not relevant, since they were not the first Confederate
incursion into non-Confederate territory.
The first border crossing by Confederate troops took place on
May 8, 1861, when Stonewall Jackson crossed a brigade into
Maryland near Harpers Ferry. This action took place before
the first movement of Northern troops into a seceded state,
which did not take place until May 24, when Federal troops
entered Alexandria VA.
One might also note that, earlier in the same month, the
Confederates sent four cannons, with ammunition, to a militia
force in St. Louis, despite the fact that Missouri had not
seceded, nor joined the CSA. Since no troops were sent, this
does not constitute an invasion, but it is unquestionably an
act of war against the US government committed inside the
borders of the US, and on territory not claimed by the CSA.
>Second, since they were at war with the United States, and since there
>were Federal forces in these territories, the Confederacy would have been
>foolish to allow them to stay there in her rear and on her borders.
Sure, and the Germans would surely have been foolish to allow
the Polish army to remain in Danzig. Is this the foundation of
all your judgements of morality?
Steve
--
Stephen Schmidt Department of Economics
210A Social Sciences Union College
(518) 388-6078 Schenectady NY 12308
paul rodi
>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>North had invaded the Confederacy.
>
>
Baylor invaded the territory of New Mexico and claimed it for the
Confederacy."- The Confederate Nation by Emory M. Thomas, pg.123. Unless
you are using some sort of different calendar than I am, that was after
1st Manassas.
>>
>>Second, since they were at war with the United States, and since there
>>were Federal forces in these territories, the Confederacy would have been
>>foolish to allow them to stay there in her rear and on her borders.
>>
>
>Yes, god knows a couple of hundred soldiers in New Mexico posed a deadly threat
>to the Confederacy.
The number of troops doesn't matter. The point is there were Federal
troops there and if they were allowed to remain could be reinforced and
could become a threat.
paul rodi
Missouri voted not to secede. But you have conveniently left out a few
facts.
First, while voting not to secede at that time, Missouri also asked for a
constitutional amendment guaranteeing the sanctity of slave property and
expressed its opposition to coercion of the seceded states. Missouri also
reseved the right to change her mind and secede later if she so
desired.(The Confederate Nation, pg. 88)
Second, after the war started Missouri was split. When U.S. troops
attacked a pro-Southern state militia camp near St. Louis, fighting began
in the state. In late July the convention was recalled. This is when the
governorship was declared vacant by a convention called after the state
had been occupied by Union troops and was being held in the Union by the
army, not by the people's wishes. The LAWFULLY ELECTED governor formed a
government in exile which voted to secede and was admitted to the
Confederacy in November of 1861.
Justin M Sanders
REB 4 LIFE (reb4...@aol.com) wrote:
> Missouri seceeded from the Union
> through the act of a legitimately elected legislative body. Your logic
> is without merit, since it is reflective of the general manifesto of the
> North--that none of the Southern states seceeded and that they were
> still a part of the Union. Your application of this reasoning to the
> situation in Missouri is just as fallacious as it would be when applied
> to, say, South Carolina. South Carolina seceeded. And so did
> Missouri.
A quibbling point, and then the major one.
Confederate troops under Ben McCulloch entered Missouri *before* the
Neosho legislature passed the Ordinance of Secession. Wilson's Creek was
in August-- the ord. of secess. was passed in late Oct.
Now the major point concerning Mo. secession. I'll preface my remarks, by
reminding everyone that I happen to think that the compact theory of the
formation and nature of the Union as espoused by Calhoun, Stephens, Davis,
Virginia & Kentucky Resolves, etc. was on firm ground-- to that extent I
may be classed as a secessionist. However, the events which transpired in
Missouri fail to meet many of the requirements of the compact theory of
proper secession procedure. In what follows, I will outline the secession
procedure as understood and explained in some detail by some of the
writers mentioned above.
First it is important to distinguish between the state (the people) and
the state government. The ultimate power in a state resides with the
people. When it is said that Missouri is a sovereign state, that does
*not* mean that the state government of Missouri is sovereign. Rather the
*people* of Missouri are sovereign-- they have the ultimate power in the
state. The state government has very limited powers-- limited and
authorized by the people in the state constitution (and also limitations
in the U.S. Constitution).
The state government may only do those things authorized by the state
constitution, and it is not sovereign. The sovereign power of the people
is exercised in constitution-making (indeed, many of the writers mentioned
above take "sovereignty" and "constitution-making power" to be synoymous).
A state government, since it is not sovereign, cannot change its own
constitution or it's federal constitutional relationship-- that power
belongs to the people.
The only manner, then, in which the sovereign, constitution-making, power
of the state can be exercised is by the people-- either directly or by a
convention of their delegates. In every Confederate state, with the
exception of Mo. and Ky., that was the method by which secession was
accomplished (conventions, or convention/referendum, in all but Tenn where
direct referendum alone was used).
Missouri elected a sovereign convention. It met and rejected secession in
March 1861. It then adjourned subject to recall by an executive committee
(other states did this-- e.g. Arkansas). In July, 1861, the convention
reconvened, and it declared the office of Governor, Lt. Governor, and the
legislature vacant. As the convention was the official voice of the
sovereign (the people of Missouri) it was the supreme authority in the
state and it had ample authority to mold the state government as it
saw fit (again there was precedent-- Texas' convention had removed Gov.
Sam Houston).
So when the Neosho legislature (consisting of legislators who had been
elected in 1860 and before) passed an act of secession, it was doubly
powerless to do so: (1) their offices had been declared vacant by the
sovereign-- the people in convention assembled, and (2) they were not
empowered to alter constitutional relations anyway.
These problems with Missouri's secession ordinance are quite separate from
the additional problem of the quorum at the Neosho and Cassville sessions.
Even if a quorum had been present, they still were not the properly
authorized body to alter the constitution.
--
Justin M. Sanders "I shot an arrow into the air. It fell
Dept. of Physics to earth I know not where." --Henry
Univ. of South Alabama Wadsworth Longfellow confessing
jsan...@jaguar1.usouthal.edu to a sad ignorance of ballistics.
Justin M Sanders
Stephen Schmidt (schm...@unvax.union.edu) wrote:
> paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >First, the Confederacy didn't invade these territories until after the
> >North had invaded the Confederacy.
> True, but not relevant, since they were not the first Confederate
> incursion into non-Confederate territory.
> The first border crossing by Confederate troops took place on
> May 8, 1861, when Stonewall Jackson crossed a brigade into
> Maryland near Harpers Ferry. This action took place before
> the first movement of Northern troops into a seceded state,
> which did not take place until May 24, when Federal troops
> entered Alexandria VA.
I don't know whether this fact would affect either Steve or Paul's
arguments, but the CSA had already declared war on the USA on 3 May 61.
paul rodi
schm...@unvax.union.edu (Stephen Schmidt) wrote:
>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>First, the Confederacy didn't invade these territories until after the
>>North had invaded the Confederacy.
>
>True, but not relevant, since they were not the first Confederate
>incursion into non-Confederate territory.
>
>The first border crossing by Confederate troops took place on
>May 8, 1861, when Stonewall Jackson crossed a brigade into
>Maryland near Harpers Ferry. This action took place before
>the first movement of Northern troops into a seceded state,
>which did not take place until May 24, when Federal troops
>entered Alexandria VA.
>
>Confederates sent four cannons, with ammunition, to a militia
>force in St. Louis, despite the fact that Missouri had not
>seceded, nor joined the CSA. Since no troops were sent, this
>does not constitute an invasion, but it is unquestionably an
>act of war against the US government committed inside the
>borders of the US, and on territory not claimed by the CSA.
>
After hostilities broke out in the East, Missouri "conducted its own
intrastate civil war."(The Confederate Nation, pg.94) There were armed
bands of both pro-Union and pro-Confederate radicals who formed their own
militias. You're right that Missouri had not seceded but she did reserve
the right to change her mind(see my earlier post and reference). This was
a conflict between the citizens of one state, not between the state and
the U.S. government.
Foreign governments have always sent aid to organizations in other foreign
countries that have interests similar or the same as their own.
>>Second, since they were at war with the United States, and since there
>>were Federal forces in these territories, the Confederacy would have been
>>foolish to allow them to stay there in her rear and on her borders.
>
>Sure, and the Germans would surely have been foolish to allow
>the Polish army to remain in Danzig. Is this the foundation of
>all your judgements of morality?
>
Why must you and all the rest of your pro-Union, yankee apologists feel it
necessary to equate the Confederacy and its armies to Nazi Germany? I have
seen a number of references to this throughout this thread.
I personally find it to be a dishonor to the memory of those who fought
for what they believed in. Just because they happened to have worn a gray
uniform and had differing beliefs from yours is no reason to put them
alongside madmen like Hitler.
I don't have any ancestors who fought in the war, my family was still in
Italy at the time. But I'm sure that those among us who do must feel much
more indignation than than I do at this type of reprehensible statement.
BTW, I would feel just as indignant if the Union and her armies were
compared to the Nazis.
Paul Rodi
RStacy2229
In article <4u7gce$d...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>Fort
>Sumter was there because the United States has the right to build
military
>bases in the territory of the United States (subject to certain obvious
legal
>requirements such as purchase or ownership of land).>
And how, might we ask, did the US govt come to own that piece of land? And
was not its peaceful transfer to South Carolina the subject of
negotiations between the CSA and US immediately prior to the beginning of
the bombardment? And did not Lincoln's government fail to bargain in good
faith?
>Your analogy to an American base in Germany is not correct. A more
>appropriate analogy would be to a German military base in Germany.>
No, what about the former Czechoslovakian bases in the now separated
Slovak and Czech republics? Did the Slovaks claim some right in the bases
in Czech territory? Or vice versa? South Carolina and the Confederacy made
no claim to bases in Pennsylvania or Ohio, after all.
You damned Yankees wouldn't know a valid syllogism if it bit you on the
leg.
Robert Stacy McCain
RStacy2229
In article <4tt0af$e...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till
>released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the powers
>created....
Intolerable abuses of the powers created by Northern interests, and
reflected by the rise of the Republican Party, as detailed in Georgia's
explanation of its secession:
1. Intent to impose "exploded theories" (mercantile protectionism, i.e.,
high tariffs) upon the nation, to the detriment of the nation's
agricultural interests, including those of the South.
2. Denial of the right of Southerners to reside, with their slaves, in
Western territories purchased or conquered at the expense of Southern
blood and treasure.
3. Northern states' attempts to nullify fugitive slave laws, thus seeking
to deprive Southerners of their property without due process of law.
4. Repeated Northern attempts, including the John Brown raid, to incite
race warfare in the South, with the apparent approval of Republican
leaders.
5. Danger of Republican patronage placing abolitionists in charge of
Southern post offices and other positions from which they could further
incite servile insurrection.
Survival is the first law, and Southerners, seeing their very lives
jeopardized by Lincoln's ascension to the imperial throne, sought to
invoke another of Madison's writings -- no mere personal letter, this:
"[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment
on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first
duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the
late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped
power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the
question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the
principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the
principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it."
Secession in 1860-61 was meant to pre-empt the usurpation of power by the
federal government. Look at the manifest abuses of federal power today,
and one must conclude that the South was correct in seeing "all the
consequences in the
principle" -- the heinous imperial principle that the states are mere
"districts" or "provinces" of the central government -- and very wisely
did they seek to avoid "the consequences by denying the principle."
You can natter on about slavery and racism and treason and such all you
want to, but on the main point, the adherents of Leviathan were wrong and
the South was right. Smaller governments, having less power, are less
abusive than large governments.
Robert Stacy McCain
Rome GA
Leonard M. Keane
In <DvvvK...@midway.uchicago.edu> cj...@midway.uchicago.edu (Charles
Why all this ranting about whether secession is legal, constitutional,
etc.?? I believe it is quite clear under established International law
that any sovereign body (call it a State, tribe, nation, community) is
at all times lawfully entitled to sever the ties that bind it to
another government or sovereign body. Nor does it really require any
grounds other than its own agreed upon collective will. If certain
prescribed grounds were required, then we get into the matter of
whether such grounds are "reasonable" or "necessary", or whether the
sovereign body is truly oppressed, or simply fed up, with the entity
from which it wishes to separate. And, guess who (what) will make such
a determination: the sovereign body with the most power and facing the
loss of some of that power, of course! They will never find the grounds
suitable, but rather will bring their full military, political and
economic power to bear against the "damned rebels". And if the rebels
lose they will, indeed, be "damned" rebels for all of recorded history
- unless their successor generations are able to carry on the movement.
There are numerous examples of this in recent history.
Armies can be defeated. Ideas cannot. You can go around in circles all
you want on the definitions of rebellion, secession, and treason. If
you lose you'll be "guilty" of all of them, and then some. If you
prevail, you will be a new sovereign body, for good or ill. Throughout
the entire process you'll have to accept responsibility for your
actions at the hands of those who oppose you. This may well include
swinging from the end of a rope. All of the signers of the U.S.
Declaration of Independence pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred
honor" and many of them paid the full price.
As for the War for Southern Independence (Civil War to you other
Yankees who feel the Constitution means something other than what it
says and who buy into the central government/Abe Lincoln/grade-school
version of history), it is illustrative that the states of the former
Confederacy were required to include in their constitutions a surrender
of the right of secession before being re-admitted to the Union! So, if
they never had the right under the Constitution and if the other states
don't have the right, *why* was this concession required (with a bit of
persuasion at gunpoint) for re-admission?
The answer seems clear. The defeated South became a fiefdom and new
slave class of the central government which deprived it of its natural
right to associate with whatever government it chose. My ancestors
were not here then, but came to this country to avoid living under
similar deprivations of freedom. The motive of the U.S. Federal
Government in prosecuting the war and imposing its "peace" was
entirely economic, but had *nothing* to do with slavery which was
already a dead institution with the advancement of technology. The
South remains in this predicament to this day.
Is it any wonder "secession" is again being seriously considered
wherever central power brokers ignore the will of their citizens? It
appears the U.S.A. is already entering a phase of dissolution and the
federal government has taken a number of violent actions against
perceived, though relatively minor, elements of this movement - people
professing certain philosophical ideas and definitely wanting only to
be "left alone". Significant stirrings are seen in Alaska, Hawaii, the
Pacific Northwest, Texas, elsewhere in the South, Quebec, Bosnia,
Chechnia. Wherever this has happened or is happening I see the cause
as an overbearing central government completely out of touch with
everything but its own bureaucratic self-interest. The solution is
equally simple and the government that finds the means and will to act
on the simple solution could be a truly lasting one. That brings us
back to the question of whether it would be *allowed* to exist.
Len.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ukhgh$p...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>First, the Confederacy didn't invade these territories until after the
>>>North had invaded the Confederacy.
>>
>>
>"In early August of 1861 a party of "buffalo hunters" led by John R.
>Baylor invaded the territory of New Mexico and claimed it for the
>Confederacy."- The Confederate Nation by Emory M. Thomas, pg.123. Unless
>you are using some sort of different calendar than I am, that was after
>1st Manassas.
And I guess if you defined the Civil War as starting at Antietam, everything
would look different, too. Baylore began organizing his "buffalo hunters" in
December of 1860. In February 1861, delegates at the provisional government in
Montgomery, Alabama, introduced a resolution to try to get "Arizona" and New
Mexico for the Confederacy, and appointed two commissioners to travel to New
Mexico to do so. They helped to raise a militia company for the Confedearcy in
Mesilla, New Mexico in March 1861. The Confederate commander in Texas, Van
Dorn, ordered troops to the territory in May 1861, writing to one officer that
"if the Union troops [in Southern New Mexico] could be surprised, they could
easily be taken." And Confederates in El Paso [then Franklin] had already
begun raising military units for the same thing. Baylor following Van Dorn's
orders, left San Antonio in mid-June and arrived at Franklin at the end of the
month. On July 23, he left Fort Bliss to attack Fort Fillmore in New Mexico
Territory.
>>>
>>>Second, since they were at war with the United States, and since there
>>>were Federal forces in these territories, the Confederacy would have been
>>>foolish to allow them to stay there in her rear and on her borders.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, god knows a couple of hundred soldiers in New Mexico posed a deadly thre
at to the Confederacy.
>
>The number of troops doesn't matter. The point is there were Federal
>troops there and if they were allowed to remain could be reinforced and
>could become a threat.
>
A threat to what, exactly? Do you know what is between El Paso and San
Antonio? Five hundred and fifty miles of nothing.
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <4ukjg3$p...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:
>>all the time would eventually learn how to spell it. As for Missouri, I'd
>>think you'd take the opinions of the secession convention over that of the
>>remnants of the state legislature who fled with Jackson.
>>After all, Missouri held a state convention just like the rest of
>the South to determine whether or not it would secede. The convention said no.
>>And then later it reassembled and declared the governorship vacant. Why would
>you not accept the opinions of the actual secession convention? Sounds like if
>>someone says "yes" and someone else says "no," you're ready to take the yes a
nd
>>ignore the no, no matter who says which.
>>
>Yes, Missouri held a state convention like the rest of the South. Yes,
>Missouri voted not to secede. But you have conveniently left out a few
>facts.
>
>First, while voting not to secede at that time, Missouri also asked for a
>constitutional amendment guaranteeing the sanctity of slave property and
>expressed its opposition to coercion of the seceded states. Missouri also
>reseved the right to change her mind and secede later if she so
>desired.(The Confederate Nation, pg. 88)
All irrelevant to the question of whether or not Missouri was part of the
Confederacy. You admit it: Missouri did NOT secede.
>Second, after the war started Missouri was split. When U.S. troops
>attacked a pro-Southern state militia camp near St. Louis, fighting began
>in the state. In late July the convention was recalled. This is when the
>governorship was declared vacant by a convention called after the state
>had been occupied by Union troops and was being held in the Union by the
>army, not by the people's wishes. The LAWFULLY ELECTED governor formed a
>government in exile which voted to secede and was admitted to the
>Confederacy in November of 1861.
Since when can a governor form a government all by his lonesome?
REB 4 LIFE
In article <4ujukm$i...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>First of all, the word is "secede." You'd think someone who spouts the
term
>all the time would eventually learn how to spell it.
I beg your pardon, Sir. It was late, and Ed Frank's spell-checker
don't work worth a damn.
R4L
REB 4 LIFE
In article <1996Aug...@admin1.memphis.edu>, efr...@cc.memphis.edu
writes:
>To which the Southern League shouts: "Now we see
>the violence inherent in the system! Don't you
>see it? You saw it...."
>
>Ed "'She turned me into a newt'" Frank
Alas, I fear Mr. Ed has eaten one too many of Robin's
minstrels. But, he is "not dead yet".
Allen "and there was much rejoicing" Sullivant
gary charbonneau
In article <4ulbph$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4u7gce$d...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>
>>Fort Sumter was there because the United States has the right to build
>>military bases in the territory of the United States (subject to certain
>>obvious legal requirements such as purchase or ownership of land).
>And how, might we ask, did the US govt come to own that piece of land?
Good question. I don't know. There was no "piece of land" there
until the U.S. government created it (IIRC, Sumter was built on an artificial
island).
The Constitution provides that Congress has the power "to
exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever ... over all
Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in
which the Same shall be, for the erection of Forts...." (Art. I, Sec. 8).
The South Carolina legislature may have given its consent for the purchase
of the "land" on which Fort Sumter was located (or, given that the
"land" in question was under water, that may not have been necessary).
The Constitution does not suggest that any consent for purchase given by
a state legislature in pursuance of Art. I, Sec. 8 constitutes a "treaty"
between the United States and the state in question, nor does it suggest
that the consent, once given, is revocable (given that Congress subse-
quently has the power "to exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases
whatsoever).
>And was not its peaceful transfer to South Carolina the subject of
>negotiations between the CSA and US immediately prior to the beginning of
>the bombardment?
Yes.
>And did not Lincoln's government fail to bargain in good faith?
Yes and no. There was confustion within the Lincoln government over
what should be done with Sumter. The commissioners who were led to believe
the Sumter would be evacuated were led to believe so by Seward, not Lincoln.
Seward did not have final authority in the matter and lacked the power to
deliver the fort. There was no legal obligation on the part of the
U.S. government to turn over the fort, or to negotiate its turnover.
>
>>Your analogy to an American base in Germany is not correct. A more
>>appropriate analogy would be to a German military base in Germany.>
>
>No, what about the former Czechoslovakian bases in the now separated
>Slovak and Czech republics? Did the Slovaks claim some right in the bases
>in Czech territory? Or vice versa?
I don't know, and, if so, what is the relevance? The legal status of Fort
Sumter was, AFAIK, not a matter to be determined under Czechoslovakian law.
>South Carolina and the Confederacy made
>no claim to bases in Pennsylvania or Ohio, after all.
No, but any argument they had claiming ownership (other than "it's in our
territory", which is is irrelevant to the legal question of ownership)
would apply equally well to bases in Pennsylvania or Ohio.
>You damned Yankees wouldn't know a valid syllogism if it bit you on the
>leg.
If am ever bitten on the leg, I will be quite certain that whatever has
bitten me is not a syllogism.
- Gary Charbonneau
gary charbonneau
In article <hubcap.839620302@hubcap>,
System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>>Jim Epperson asks, now and again, for someone to explain how the
>>South was being oppressed. The answers he usually gets refer to
>>reasons why Southerners "felt" they were being oppressed. I don't
>>think such answers address the question.
>
>Then, it is not in dispute that the Southerners felt they were
>being oppressed? We're just arguing among ourselves about
>whether we think they were?
No, it is not in dispute.
>We are the ``impartial observers'' who are expected to arrive at
>a reasonable judgement?
I hope that we are among them, yes.
>If so, the answer to Jim Epperson's question will change, depending
>on who you ask, since very few of us are impartial, and you'll get
>different answers, depending on who you ask, about which ones of us
>are reasonable. Am I?
Yes, though on this issue I believe that you happen to be wrong.
>How about Chuck Ten Brink,
Yes, he's a reasonable fellow too.
>is this a reasonable
>statement?
>
> There were nearly four million slaves, ... , living in the seceding
> states who most certainly didn't want the South to be let
> alone.
>
>He's more certain than I am. Many slaves didn't ``feel'' that they
>were being oppressed. We all think that slavery = oppression though,
>so we disagree with those long dead slaves about what their condition
>was. And we disagree with the Southerners about whether or not
>they were being oppressed.
I would agree, although not entirely. The purpose of keeping
abolitionist propaganda out of the South was, of course, precisely
to prevent slaves from developing any notion that they were oppressed. In
addition, the nature of slavery was such that expressions, by slaves,
of their feelings of oppression were considered rather unwelcome
by people who had absolute power over their lives. Consequently,
slaves had every incentive not to express such feelings. It's not as though
slaves were represented in Congress by a John C. Calhoun who could
give vent to whatever feelings they had.
>Maybe we're discovering that there's two groups (not Groups) of us.
>Some care more about what 1860's era people thought about the 1860s.
>Some care more about what modern people think about the 1860s.
And some care only about what some 1860's era people thought about the
1860's, and not about what other 1860's era people thought about the
1860's.
>The Southerners were being oppressed.
No, they said they were being oppressed. If white Southerners had
traded places with enslaved black Southerners, then they might have learned
something about the distinction between "feeling" oppressed and actually
_being_ oppressed. But white Southerners fought to prevent them-
selves from being "enslaved" by the North with a charming lack of self-
consciousness. They, unlike you, really did believe that
"slavery=oppression" -- certainly when applied to white people such as
themselves. What they didn't believe was that "slavery=oppression" if the
slaves had black skins.
>They stated the conditions they found oppressive.
Correct. For the most part:
1. By any attempt to limit slavery in the territories, whether by
excluding it all together, or by the application of the
doctrine of popular sovereignty.
2. By the occasional refusal on the part of Northerners in some states
to wear smiley buttons when fugitive slaves were returned.
3. By the refusal of Northerners to practice self-censorship on matters
relating to slavery.
4. By the election of Abraham Lincoln.
>I'm unable to comprehend how their answers
>could fail to address the question. It is obvious to me that many
>people don't like their answer, but it is The Answer.
Do any of the above constitute oppression? Do all of the above, taken
together, constitute oppression? How about:
5. By the fact that John Brown was welcomed as a hero among a certain
segment of the Northern population?
What was Brown's crime against the South? Asserting than an oppressed
people had the right to liberate itself through force (and be assisted
in such liberation)? If Southerners had not believed in such a principle,
there would have been no Civil War. But note that, in any case, John
Brown-style raids were repudiated by Lincoln and by the Republican's 1860
platform (see point 4 above).
- Gary Charbonneau
gary charbonneau
In article <4ulbqk$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4tt0af$e...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>
>>The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till
>>released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the powers
>>created....
>
>Intolerable abuses of the powers created by Northern interests, and
>reflected by the rise of the Republican Party, as detailed in Georgia's
>explanation of its secession:
>
>1. Intent to impose "exploded theories" (mercantile protectionism, i.e.,
>high tariffs) upon the nation, to the detriment of the nation's
>agricultural interests, including those of the South.
"Mercantile" protectionism? Protection does not benefit merchants,
since it has the effect of reducing the amount of trade that merchants
can carry out. I believe you mean "industrial" protectionism. True,
this worked to the disadvantage of agricultural interests, but, unless
carried to extremes, it's just interest group politics working itself out in a
democracy (in other words, politics as usual) not "oppression." "Agricultural
interests" in the Midwest did not feel sufficiently oppressed by
tariffs to secede; instead, they fought against secession.
When the Southern states seceded, tariffs were at a historically low level
under the Walker Tariff, which Southerners overwhelmingly supported.
Consequently, claims of a secession right based on the tariff could
only have been directed at Republican demands for what was called a
"modest" upward revision of the tariff -- a revision which had not yet
occurred and which might not even have occurred (but for secession) given
the balance of power in Congress after the 1860 elections.
Northerners paid over 90% of the tariff, Southerners less than 10%.
The cost, to the South, was primarily in somewhat higher prices for
(possibly) somewhat inferior goods compared to what could be imported.
This occurred because the South did not, by and large, develop its
own manufacturing capacity. Had it done so, its manufacturers would
have been protected along with Northern manufacturers. Where Southern
manufacturers did exist (e.g., Tredegar), it seems likely that they
benefited from the tariff along with Northern manufacturers.
Southerners did not object to protectionism when applied to agriculture
(again, normal democratic interest group politics at work). Cotton
and tobacco didn't need protection, but sugar did, so the Confederate
constitution did not prohibit protective tariffs on agricultural
products or consider such protection the result of an "exploded
theory."
>2. Denial of the right of Southerners to reside, with their slaves, in
>Western territories purchased or conquered at the expense of Southern
>blood and treasure.
This is not an abuse. Southerners had no legal right to reside in
those territories with their slaves if Congress declared otherwise. They
had no moral right to own slaves anywhere.
>3. Northern states' attempts to nullify fugitive slave laws, thus seeking
>to deprive Southerners of their property without due process of law.
This is not an abuse. No Northern state ever declared the Fugitive
Slave Act null and void. Southerners had no moral right to slave property,
due process or not.
>4. Repeated Northern attempts, including the John Brown raid, to incite
>race warfare in the South, with the apparent approval of Republican
>leaders.
The 1860 Republican platform contained the following plank:
"4. ... we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of
any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest
of crimes."
>5. Danger of Republican patronage placing abolitionists in charge of
>Southern post offices and other positions from which they could further
>incite servile insurrection.
There is no reason to believe that the Republicans would have placed
"abolitionists" in charge of those post offices to the detriment
of any hope of building up the Republican Party in the South.
<snip>
>You can natter on about slavery and racism and treason and such all you
>want to, but on the main point, the adherents of Leviathan were wrong and
>the South was right. Smaller governments, having less power, are less
>abusive than large governments.
On the contrary. It is because states too often failed to protect
the most basic human rights that the Federal government ultimately
assumed the role of protector.
- Gary Charbonneau
REB 4 LIFE
In article <4unfg4$1...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
<snipped from longer post. Numbered paragraphs by R.S. McCain>
>>2. Denial of the right of Southerners to reside, with their slaves, in
>>Western territories purchased or conquered at the expense of Southern
>>blood and treasure.
>
>This is not an abuse. Southerners had no legal right to reside in
>those territories with their slaves if Congress declared otherwise.
Possibly so, but what about Constitutional guarantees regarding the
use and owndership of private property? Were not slaves property?
> They
>had no moral right to own slaves anywhere.
Thank you, Reverend Charbonneau. Now save your other sermons
for those who appreciate them.
>>3. Northern states' attempts to nullify fugitive slave laws, thus
seeking
>>to deprive Southerners of their property without due process of law.
>This is not an abuse. No Northern state ever declared the Fugitive
>Slave Act null and void.
But many refused to enforce it. What would Andy Jackson have said
about that, considering what he thought about Nullification?
> Southerners had no moral right to slave property,
>due process or not.
Listen here, Reverend. You keep adding another verse to this
"invitation",
but I ain't gonna meet you at your alter. Whyntcha just bag it?
>>4. Repeated Northern attempts, including the John Brown raid, to incite
>>race warfare in the South, with the apparent approval of Republican
>>leaders.
>
>The 1860 Republican platform contained the following plank:
>
>"4. ... we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of
>any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the
gravest
>of crimes."
I don't give two hoots what the party platform said. Southrons knew who
wielded the power behind the platform, and those folk were abolitionists.
>>5. Danger of Republican patronage placing abolitionists in charge of
>>Southern post offices and other positions from which they could further
>>incite servile insurrection.
>
>There is no reason to believe that the Republicans would have placed
>"abolitionists" in charge of those post offices to the detriment
>of any hope of building up the Republican Party in the South.
Uh huh. What would it have hurt to do this? Do you seriously believe
that the Republican Party would *ever* grow in the slave states,
considering
their ultimate goal?
><snip>
>>You can natter on about slavery and racism and treason and such all you
>>want to, but on the main point, the adherents of Leviathan were wrong
and
>>the South was right. Smaller governments, having less power, are less
>>abusive than large governments.
>On the contrary. It is because states too often failed to protect
>the most basic human rights that the Federal government ultimately
>assumed the role of protector.
And we all know what came of that...Federal Govt. as baby-sitter to the
Nation....
R4L
REB 4 LIFE
In article <4ulrqo$4...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>Since when can a governor form a government all by his lonesome?
Oh, I don't know. You tell me. And then tell me how a President
can suspend Habeus Corpus and the First Amendment all by
his lonesome.
R4L