Questions for Anyone
Mikegriffith1
questions for regular contributors to this newsgroup:
1. How soon, if ever, would slavery have been abolished in the South if the
Civil War had not happened? That is, was slavery already starting to die out
before the Civil War erupted?
2. I repeatedly encounter in the writings of pro-South authors that slavery was
not only not the chief cause of the Civil War but that it really had very
little to do with the war. However, in the very declarations of causes of
secession that were published by several of the southern states, the threat to
the institution of slavery is prominently cited as a major cause, if not the
main cause, of the decision to secede. Yes, states rights was a key issue, but
from what I can discover that issue revolved around the South's objection to
the North's attempts to restrict and abolish slavery. Does anyone know of any
good articles that do a good job of explaining the real role of slavery as a
cause of the Civil War?
Thanks in advance.
Michael T. Griffith
Real Issues Home Page
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/
Hugh Lawson
> I'm just starting to seriously study the Civil War, and I have a couple
> questions for regular contributors to this newsgroup:
>
> 1. How soon, if ever, would slavery have been abolished in the South if the
> Civil War had not happened? That is, was slavery already starting to die out
> before the Civil War erupted?
I think that depends on when the northerners would have decided to
abolish it. When do you think?
> 2. I repeatedly encounter in the writings of pro-South authors that
> slavery was not only not the chief cause of the Civil War but that
> it really had very little to do with the war. However, in the very
> declarations of causes of secession that were published by several
> of the southern states, the threat to the institution of slavery is
> prominently cited as a major cause, if not the main cause, of the
> decision to secede. Yes, states rights was a key issue, but from
> what I can discover that issue revolved around the South's objection
> to the North's attempts to restrict and abolish slavery. Does
> anyone know of any good articles that do a good job of explaining
> the real role of slavery as a cause of the Civil War?
Yes. I have done this many times one this forum.
1. Fear about the future of slavery was the main cause of secession
and the formation of the CSA.
2. Secession and the disagreement about it (CSA v. USA) was the main
cause of the outbreak of the ACW.
3. The decision to abolish slavery was a product of the revolutionary
effect of the war on US (i.e. northern) opinion. It had two
components: idealistic (end slavery because it is bad), and power
politics (end slavery as a means of cutting off the air supply of
secessionism).
AFAIK this is the standard textbook explanation.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Geoff Blankenmeyer
> I'm just starting to seriously study the Civil War, and I have a couple
> questions for regular contributors to this newsgroup:
>
> 1. How soon, if ever, would slavery have been abolished in the South if the
> Civil War had not happened? That is, was slavery already starting to die out
> before the Civil War erupted?
To answer "How soon?" I think one would require a mathematical
model to postulate on such a question. Stanley Engerman and
robert Fogel are often cited here as two fellas who won a Nobel
for their treatise on the economics of slavery with their work,
"Time On the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery".
The book has pros and cons but the one theme central to the book
was that slavery was a flourishing industry even at the time of
the Civil War. As far as saouthern goals for the future of
slavery, you should consider that one the beefs the South had
with the North was the course in which Manifest Destiny should
take. The South was interested in extending borders in a
Southern direction and the North was decidedly in favor of going
West. The reason was that "southern climes were more conducive
to slavery". You may want to read up on th Filibusters for a
more thorough understanding of this phenomena. But the short
story was that the South was into slavery for the long haul. The
"slavery was near extinction" line of thought is pure myth.
> 2. I repeatedly encounter in the writings of pro-South authors that slavery was
> not only not the chief cause of the Civil War but that it really had very
> little to do with the war. However, in the very declarations of causes of
> secession that were published by several of the southern states, the threat to
> the institution of slavery is prominently cited as a major cause, if not the
> main cause, of the decision to secede. Yes, states rights was a key issue, but
> from what I can discover that issue revolved around the South's objection to
> the North's attempts to restrict and abolish slavery. Does anyone know of any
> good articles that do a good job of explaining the real role of slavery as a
> cause of the Civil War?
If it is an article you are looking for, James McPherson wrote a
good one for "North and South" magazine. Find it in Vol. 4,
Issue #1, aptly titled, "What Caused the Civil War". You can
back order a copy at:
http://www.northandsouthmagazine.com/Issues/Volume-4.htm
Enjoy!
Geoff
Gregory E. Garland
>
> mikegr...@cs.com (Mikegriffith1) writes:
>
> > Does anyone know of any good articles that do a good job of
> > explaining the real role of slavery as a cause of the Civil War?
>
> Yes. I have done this many times one this forum.
Rule number one is never trust a liar. Although the statements Hugh
makes below are a somewhat reasonable approximation of the truth,
the simple facts are that Hugh has repeatedly and explicitly
denied that these are the cause of the civil war. Hugh's claim
has always been that the north caused the civil war by trying
to suppress secession. Hugh thinks that if he lies loud enough
and long enough then noone will remember his previous lies.
Mikegriffith1
On that point, it seems to me the South may have been on valid ground, even
though it wanted to secede in order to preserve the disgusting institution of
slavery.
In other words, even though the South's reason for wanting to secede may have
been unjust, didn't it still have the right to secede, since it was composed of
sovereign states?
The states formed the federal government. The states began as soverign
entities. They voluntarily formed a federal union. Therefore, it would seem
to me that if a state or a group of states then decided to leave the union,
that they should be able to do so, even if for an unjust reason.
I wonder what would have happened if Lincoln had just accepted the Confederacy
and had tried to get along with it rather than going to war against it.
I think one reason that pro-Confederate writers argue that slavery wasn't the
chief cause of the Civil War is that Lincoln said he was willing to agree to
allow slavery to continue in the South and that he didn't feel he had any right
to interfere with the South on this issue. In light of these facts, one could
make the argument that Lincoln didn't really care about slavery and that his
chief concern was preserving the union. But, then again, if the South hadn't
been practicing slavery, it wouldn't have felt threatened by Lincoln's election
in the first place and thus would have had no reason to secede.
These are just some random thoughts from someone who is just starting to read
up on this subject.
William G. Davis
"Mikegriffith1" <mikegr...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030101083731...@mb-cc.news.cs.com...
Lincoln said this only (and I do mean ONLY) because as President, he was
Constitutionally bound to uphold the law, which allowed slavery.
In light of these facts, one could
> make the argument that Lincoln didn't really care about slavery and that
his
> chief concern was preserving the union.
And one would be very wrong. While it was true Lincoln's chief concern was
preservation of the Union, do not mistake that as being tolerant of slavery.
Lincoln was anti-slavery, strongly so, and had been for most of his adult
life. Slavery was repugnant to him. And from before the start of his
presidency, he realized that slavery would have to go if the Union was to be
preserved and the threat of disunion removed. But as President, he was
Constitutionally bound to the protection of slavery by law. It wasn't until
the Union had made enough significant military gains during the war that
Lincoln publicly began moving against slavery...as a war goal...and issued
the Emancipation Proclamation. There werer other steps before that, such as
the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia (always a source of
international embarrassment).
But, then again, if the South hadn't
> been practicing slavery, it wouldn't have felt threatened by Lincoln's
election
> in the first place and thus would have had no reason to secede.
True. They broke their promise to begine getting out of slavery by 1808.
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"In giving freedom to the slave,
we assure freedom to the free:
honorable alike in what we give
and what we preserve."
--Abraham Lincoln
Steven Witmer
>I guess the ultimate question is, Did the South have the right to secede?
>
>On that point, it seems to me the South may have been on valid ground, even
>though it wanted to secede in order to preserve the disgusting institution of
>slavery.
>
>In other words, even though the South's reason for wanting to secede may have
>been unjust, didn't it still have the right to secede, since it was composed
>of
>sovereign states?
>
>The states formed the federal government.
>I guess the ultimate question is, Did the South have the right to secede?
>
>On that point, it seems to me the South may have been on valid ground, even
>though it wanted to secede in order to preserve the disgusting institution of
>slavery.
>
>In other words, even though the South's reason for wanting to secede may have
>been unjust, didn't it still have the right to secede, since it was composed
>of
>sovereign states?
>
>The states formed the federal government.
The process of ratifying the Constitution bypassed the state governments and
was sent directly to the people of each state. Thus, the states did not form
the federal government.
>The states began as soverign
>entities.
That's debatable. As colonies, they certainly were not sovereign. But they
formed the United States while still technically colonies under British Rule
and were governed to some extent by the Continental Congress. This union
continued under the Articles of Confederation and the under the Constitution.
So it could be argued that the states were never completely individually
sovereign.
>They voluntarily formed a federal union. Therefore, it would seem
>to me that if a state or a group of states then decided to leave the union,
>that they should be able to do so, even if for an unjust reason.
>
But unilaterally? Just on their say-so, for any reason whatsoever?
Let me ask a question: if you form some sort of organization, one that is
recognized by others as a legal entity, do you believe that you (or any of your
partners in the organization) should be able to leave the organization, at any
time, for any reason, with whatever assets you feel like taking with you? The
United States was an entity recognized by its fellow nations. Yet South
Carolina and its compatriot states felt that they had a right to leave,
unilaterally, taking whatever federal assets happened to be within their
borders.
Also, something to point out - you've noted you're new to the subject, so I
assume you're unaware that a number of federal installations (including at a
hospital) were seized *prior* to the secession of the states those
installations were located in. This included such things has the governor of
Georgia ordering a fort seized by state militia (a fort manned by at most a
small handful of military caretakers and civilian laborers) before Georgia
voted to secede. So, the question to ask is - should a state be allowed to
seize federal property, by force, and then be allowed to use secession as a
shield to hide from the consequences of doing so (much like someone
burglarizing your home and then running to Mexico or Canada to avoid
prosecution).
<snip>
Steven Witmer
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
- Benjamin Franklin
Geoff Blankenmeyer
> I guess the ultimate question is, Did the South have the right to secede?
The short answer, no. They had the right to revolt.
> In other words, even though the South's reason for wanting to secede may have
> been unjust, didn't it still have the right to secede, since it was composed of
> sovereign states?
Just or not, you still need to show the stated *right*. You also
need to explain how these states were sovereign.
> The states formed the federal government.
The states predated the fed.
> The states began as soverign
> entities.
That is a semantic error. The states began as a collective
English colony. The only claim to sovereignty was as a
collective in their declaration of independence from Mother England.
> They voluntarily formed a federal union. Therefore, it would seem
> to me that if a state or a group of states then decided to leave the union,
> that they should be able to do so, even if for an unjust reason.
It may seem that way but it just doesn't occur that way. If you
were the sole proprietor of XYZ Widgets and voluntarily merged
into a massive conglomerate such as GE, do you now have the the
ability to leave, taking all merged property with you? You can
leave. But only with those parcels in your office that GE says
you can take. Same deal went for Secessionists.
> I wonder what would have happened if Lincoln had just accepted the Confederacy
> and had tried to get along with it rather than going to war against it.
I wonder what would have happened if the Secessionists would have
accepted that they were in the Union for the long haul and not
started a war to prove otherwise.
> I think one reason that pro-Confederate writers argue that slavery wasn't the
> chief cause of the Civil War is that Lincoln said he was willing to agree to
> allow slavery to continue in the South and that he didn't feel he had any right
> to interfere with the South on this issue. In light of these facts, one could
> make the argument that Lincoln didn't really care about slavery and that his
> chief concern was preserving the union.
You would be overgenerlizing. If slavery meant nothing to
Lincoln, his call to restrict it would never have been a
consideration.
> These are just some random thoughts from someone who is just starting to read
> up on this subject.
Your thoughts are not so random as you make these out to be.
What you write is pretty much part and parcel of Neo-Confederate
boilerplate, whether you realize it or not. In short, been
there, seen that.
Geoff
Maxwelton
> I'm just starting to seriously study the Civil War, and I have a couple
> questions for regular contributors to this newsgroup:
>
> 1. How soon, if ever, would slavery have been abolished in the South if the
> Civil War had not happened? That is, was slavery already starting to die out
> before the Civil War erupted?
The Netherlands abolished slavery in their colonies in 1863, Spain
ended slavery in the carribean in the 1870's, and when Brazil abolished
slavery in 1888 slavery ended in the western hemisphere. There was
a slave revolt in Cuba preceding abolition, but none of these
events involved anything resembling the ACW. To believe the
american south would have kept slavery intact is inane.
RC
> (Mikegriffith1) wrote...
> > I'm just starting to seriously study the Civil War, and I have a couple
> > questions for regular contributors to this newsgroup:
> >
> > 1. How soon, if ever, would slavery have been abolished in the South if
the
> > Civil War had not happened? That is, was slavery already starting to
die out
> > before the Civil War erupted?
>
> The Netherlands abolished slavery in their colonies in 1863, Spain
> ended slavery in the carribean in the 1870's, and when Brazil abolished
> slavery in 1888 slavery ended in the western hemisphere. There was
> a slave revolt in Cuba preceding abolition, but none of these
> events involved anything resembling the ACW. To believe the
> american south would have kept slavery intact is inane.
If the US had continued to practice slavery or if the South had successfully
seceded and continued slavery, is there any indication that this would have
impacted how other countries viewed the practice? Would any have been less
likely to abolish it?
Randy
[snip]
Rich Rostrom
>1. How soon, if ever, would slavery have been abolished in the South if the
>Civil War had not happened? That is, was slavery already starting to die out
>before the Civil War erupted?
Slavery was in some respects flourishing in 1860.
But there were problems. In some areas the slave population
was growing faster than the use for it - especially in
the east, where slavery was longest established, and soil
exhaustion was a problem. Virginia had become an exporter
of surplus slaves to the newly settled regions of the
Southwest (i.e. Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana).
But the areas further west (Kansas, New Mexico) would not
support slavery.
Thus Southerners were very interested in expanding the US
into Central America to gain territory for slavery expansion.
This wasn't going to happen, IMO. Which means that many
planters would have large numbers of excess slaves on their
hands. This was already happening in Virginia - R E Lee's
father-in-law was in that position. Very often these excess
slaves were manumitted by their owners, which is why Virginia
had a large free black population in 1860.
In another 20 years this problem would become acute, IMO.
Ideologically - the South, especially the Deep South, was
rigidly committed to slavery. This commitment was enforced
by a self-appointed class of violent intimidators with the
approval of the community. Dissenters were beaten or lynched
so routinely that there were none, except the occasional
utterly fearless hero like Cassius Clay.
But in the long term it would be impossible for the South
to isolate itself from the world. IMO, sometime around
1880, the rigid shell would collapse. It might be something
like the collapse of Communism.
--
Never consume legumes before transacting whatsoever | Rich Rostrom
even in the outermost courtyard of a descendant of |
Timur the Terrible. | rrostrom@dummy
--- Avram Davidson, _Dr. Bhumbo Singh_ | 21stcentury.net
Mikegriffith1
and was sent directly to the people of each state. Thus, the states did not
form the federal government. >>>
But the drafting of it was done by representatives from each state. If any
state government had strongly objected to joining the federal union, it could
have declined to do so. Each state joined voluntarily. So how can one make
the argument that no state could ever leave the union?
Michael Furlan
<rros...@21stcentury.net> wrote:
>Virginia had become an exporter
>of surplus slaves to the newly settled regions of the
>Southwest (i.e. Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana).
I understand that as being due to demand pull, rather than a "fire
sale".
>Thus Southerners were very interested in expanding the US
>into Central America to gain territory for slavery expansion.
>
>This wasn't going to happen,
Had the CSA been able to defeat the greatest military power in the
western hemisphere and achieve independence, who was going to stop
them?
All kinds of horrors would have been possible if the CSA had won.
A massive slave empire extending from the Mason Dixon line to Tierra
del Fuego would have been a possibility. The reopening of the
atlantic slave trade is another.
>IMO. Which means that many
>planters would have large numbers of excess slaves on their
>hands.
So income from slave rentals would have been below the cost of
maintaining slaves? [Slave prices had not sunk to zero, but you could
argue that that was because of their export value.]
Lee did profitable rent out slaves.
>This was already happening in Virginia - R E Lee's
>father-in-law was in that position. Very often these excess
>slaves were manumitted by their owners, which is why Virginia
>had a large free black population in 1860.
Slaves were manumitted for a variety of reasons, economics was
probably the least important.
>But in the long term it would be impossible for the South
>to isolate itself from the world.
You ignore the possibility of the world coming around to seeing things
more "reasonably." A CSA victory would have given a big lift to
anti-democratic forces world wide.
Mikegriffith1
Confederacy and had tried to get along with it rather than going to war against
it.
BLANKENMEYER: I wonder what would have happened if the Secessionists would have
accepted that they were in the Union for the long haul and not started a war to
prove otherwise. >>>
That's a very good point. This same question, or one similar to it, has
occurred to me.
Again, I qualify my comments by noting that I'm just getting started in all
this stuff, but I'm not clear on why the South seceded without at least giving
Lincoln a chance, i.e., without at least waiting to see how he started to
govern.
Did the South secede so soon after Lincoln's election because it feared Lincoln
would destroy it if given the chance? But where was the evidence that Lincoln
was going to destroy the South?
Hugh Lawson
> <<< The process of ratifying the Constitution bypassed the state governments
> and was sent directly to the people of each state. Thus, the states did not
> form the federal government. >>>
>
> But the drafting of it was done by representatives from each state. If any
> state government had strongly objected to joining the federal union, it could
> have declined to do so. Each state joined voluntarily. So how can one make
> the argument that no state could ever leave the union?
By upholding a principle something like this: The Constitution is the
kind of covenant from which there is no lawful exit by a single State
on its own authority.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
William G. Davis
There was no "evidence". The whole thing was a con job foist upon the
entire US by the elites of the south. The ONLY thing the slave interests
stood to lose on Lincoln's election (and the rise of the Radical Republicans
to a position of power in Congress), was the refusal to allow any more
territories to be granted statehood as slave states. Because the slave
interests needed to expand their slaveocracy, this was unacceptable to them.
So they set out to make the issue "States Rights", and the only "States
Right" that mattered was the right to own personal (human) property.
Nevertheless, they conned the nation, or a goodly portion of it into
believing their "rights" had been trampled upon for years by the
"out-of-control" Northern biased Federal government (such a thing simply had
never existed before Lincoln's election!) .
Thus you have a group of political leaders, all on the same page and
declaring for secession because of slavery, and a southern slaveocracy-based
electorate, who went to war to fight for their "rahts". A dichotomy
created by the deceit of the elite of the southern slave interests.
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@heNOSPAMhe.com
"The United States is not a nation
to which peace is a necessity."
--Grover Cleveland
>
Gregory E. Garland
>
> But the drafting of it was done by representatives from each state.
> If any state government had strongly objected to joining the federal
> union, it could have declined to do so. Each state joined voluntarily.
> So how can one make the argument that no state could ever leave the
> union?
Because what they 'volunteered' to do was to give up any notion
of individual nation-state sovereignty. If they wanted to 'legally'
regain that sovereignty they have to ask the entity to whom they gave
it (i.e., the people of the United States) to give it back; it is
no longer in the individual state's power to take it back on demand.
Trish Winston
> <<< The process of ratifying the Constitution bypassed the state
governments
> and was sent directly to the people of each state. Thus, the states did
not
> form the federal government. >>>
>
> But the drafting of it was done by representatives from each state. If
any
> state government had strongly objected to joining the federal union, it
could
> have declined to do so. Each state joined voluntarily. So how can one
make
> the argument that no state could ever leave the union?
>
Each state joined voluntarily, but not after considerable compromise, one of
those being slavery. Having joined, it makes no sense to say that they
could withdraw without consent of the other states.
Trish
---------------------------------------------
Cash
> I'm just starting to seriously study the Civil War, and I have a couple
> questions for regular contributors to this newsgroup:
>
> 1. How soon, if ever, would slavery have been abolished in the South if
the
> Civil War had not happened? That is, was slavery already starting to die
out
> before the Civil War erupted?
Without the Civil War we may very well have seen slavery in the United
States continue well into the 20th century. There is a myth that slavery
was beginning to die out, but it is just that: a myth. Cotton had reached
a geographic limit, but slaves could be used for any type of labor. Take a
look around and see where people are performing labor and you will see where
slavery could be employed.
>
> 2. I repeatedly encounter in the writings of pro-South authors that
slavery was
> not only not the chief cause of the Civil War but that it really had very
> little to do with the war. However, in the very declarations of causes of
> secession that were published by several of the southern states, the
threat to
> the institution of slavery is prominently cited as a major cause, if not
the
> main cause, of the decision to secede. Yes, states rights was a key
issue, but
> from what I can discover that issue revolved around the South's objection
to
> the North's attempts to restrict and abolish slavery. Does anyone know of
any
> good articles that do a good job of explaining the real role of slavery as
a
> cause of the Civil War?
-------------------
You've already done the best thing by going to the primary sources. An
excellent article in a recent magazine was by James M. McPherson called
"What Caused the Civil War?" It was published in _North and South_
Magazine, November 2000.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
> I guess the ultimate question is, Did the South have the right to secede?
Not unilaterally. In order to secede they would have to have the consent of
the other parties to the constitutional compact, the people of the other
states.
>
> On that point, it seems to me the South may have been on valid ground,
even
> though it wanted to secede in order to preserve the disgusting institution
of
> slavery.
>
> In other words, even though the South's reason for wanting to secede may
have
> been unjust, didn't it still have the right to secede, since it was
composed of
> sovereign states?
-------------
No, it wasn't. The states retained a portion of their sovereignty, but gave
up a measure of sovereignty as well when they ratified the Constitution.
>
> The states formed the federal government. The states began as soverign
> entities. They voluntarily formed a federal union. Therefore, it would
seem
> to me that if a state or a group of states then decided to leave the
union,
> that they should be able to do so, even if for an unjust reason.
--------------
Not true. The states did not form the federal government. The people of
the United States formed the federal government. The Union existed prior to
the ratification of the Constitution.
>
> I wonder what would have happened if Lincoln had just accepted the
Confederacy
> and had tried to get along with it rather than going to war against it.
--------------
There would have been a war at some point anyway, whether it was over Union
or over navigation of the Mississippi River, or nonreturn of fugitive
slaves.
>
> I think one reason that pro-Confederate writers argue that slavery wasn't
the
> chief cause of the Civil War is that Lincoln said he was willing to agree
to
> allow slavery to continue in the South and that he didn't feel he had any
right
> to interfere with the South on this issue. In light of these facts, one
could
> make the argument that Lincoln didn't really care about slavery and that
his
> chief concern was preserving the union. But, then again, if the South
hadn't
> been practicing slavery, it wouldn't have felt threatened by Lincoln's
election
> in the first place and thus would have had no reason to secede.
------------
The second part is true. The first part is mistaken because Lincoln, a
moderate on slavery, wanted to put slavery on the road to extinction. He
did care about slavery, but was not an immediate abolitionist.
>
> These are just some random thoughts from someone who is just starting to
read
> up on this subject.
-------------
Keep reading. You're on the right track for some things. Focus on the
primary sources. Read what James Madison said about secession. Read what
Lincoln actually said rather than what others say about him.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
> <<< The process of ratifying the Constitution bypassed the state
governments
> and was sent directly to the people of each state. Thus, the states did
not
> form the federal government. >>>
>
> But the drafting of it was done by representatives from each state. If
any
> state government had strongly objected to joining the federal union, it
could
> have declined to do so. Each state joined voluntarily. So how can one
make
> the argument that no state could ever leave the union?
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, made such an argument. He
said that no state could unilaterally leave the Union. Once the people of a
state freely entered the Union they made a solemn compact with the people of
all the other states, and they could not be released from that compact
except by consent of the other parties to the compact.
Regards,
Cash
Geoff Blankenmeyer
> <<< The process of ratifying the Constitution bypassed the state governments
> and was sent directly to the people of each state. Thus, the states did not
> form the federal government. >>>
>
> But the drafting of it was done by representatives from each state. If any
> state government had strongly objected to joining the federal union, it could
> have declined to do so. Each state joined voluntarily. So how can one make
> the argument that no state could ever leave the union?
The short story, volunteer in, in no way implies the ability to
volunteer out.
GB
Geoff Blankenmeyer
> Did the South secede so soon after Lincoln's election because it feared Lincoln
> would destroy it if given the chance? But where was the evidence that Lincoln
> was going to destroy the South?
The short answer is no to the first making the second a moot
point, imo. One would have to brush up on the history of
secession because it was a gradual process of sectionalism
leading up to the death of the Whig party, the split of the
Democratic party, and fomentation of cotton politics to get a
better handle on things. Lincoln's election was just fire to the
fuse. And a short fuse it was. might I suggest McPherson's
"Ordeal by Fire, The Coming of War". A great CW primer and a
very quick read.
Geoff
Chuck Pinnegar
Maybe, but ISTR that the President of the United States made it plain
to the South that he intended to circumvent a SC decision that had
favorable implications for that section. Now, considering that this
decision focussed on a Constitutional interpretation centering on the
very topic that the abolitionist North had been fomenting for thirty
years, I have no difficulty designating it as one piece of evidence.
Remember, as odious as the institution was, it was protected within
the states by the Constitution.
> The whole thing was a con job foist upon the
>entire US by the elites of the south.
I'm sure Mike would accept any evidence that you might offer to prove
this point.
> The ONLY thing the slave interests
>stood to lose on Lincoln's election (and the rise of the Radical Republicans
>to a position of power in Congress), was the refusal to allow any more
>territories to be granted statehood as slave states. Because the slave
>interests needed to expand their slaveocracy, this was unacceptable to them.
You are shooting yourself in the foot here. Please reread the Dred
Scott decision and interpretations and you will see that you are
proving the point I made above.
>So they set out to make the issue "States Rights", and the only "States
>Right" that mattered was the right to own personal (human) property.
State rights was an honorable political philosophy held by most
Americans, North and South, from the time of the Articles until 1861.
It has been revived since 1993 and the Lopez case. You are probably
referring to the theory of state sovereignty. The ability to own human
property was conferred upon the states by the Constitutional
Convention of 1789 and, if I recall, the Northern states thought so
little of its importance that they traded for it in a compromise. So,
the South defended her Constitution-given state right to hold slaves.
It was one aspect of the larger struggle over federal-state relations.
>Nevertheless, they conned the nation, or a goodly portion of it into
>believing their "rights" had been trampled upon for years by the
>"out-of-control" Northern biased Federal government (such a thing simply had
>never existed before Lincoln's election!) .
The didn't have to "con" the nation. The Gulf States saw that the
republican aversion to a single-issue majority party had come to pass
while the border states were appalled at Lincoln's call for 75,000
troops to coerce states to remain in the Union.
>
>Thus you have a group of political leaders, all on the same page and
>declaring for secession because of slavery, and a southern slaveocracy-based
>electorate, who went to war to fight for their "rahts". A dichotomy
>created by the deceit of the elite of the southern slave interests.
Yes, they seceded for slavery as part of the doctrine of state
rights/sovereignty. That is because state slavery is part of the state
rights/sovereignty doctrine based on the Constitution and not
vice-versa. Thus, there is no "dichotomy" as you label it for one is a
plank within the other. Oh, BTW some people do fight for their rights.
Chuck Pinnegar
Chuck Pinnegar
<trishw...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Each state joined voluntarily, but not after considerable compromise, one of
>those being slavery. Having joined, it makes no sense to say that they
>could withdraw without consent of the other states.
You are welcome to your assertion but, for the record, hundreds of
thousands disagreed with it, and that's all that mattered.
Chuck Pinnegar
William G. Davis
"Chuck Pinnegar" <cpin...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:3e13a10...@news.cogeco.ca...
Cite and source if you please. Then make your argument.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"When looking for a clue as
to why something goes wrong,
never rule out sheer stupidity."
--Groucho Marx
William G. Davis
Au contraire, hundreds of thousands, even millions agreed with it. So it
does matter.
Trish Winston
--------------------------------
So what. Millions of people believed Ptolemy and thought the earth was the
center of the universe. They were wrong. The earth is not the center of
the universe and neither, apparently, is *The South*.
Trish
Chuck Pinnegar
wrote:
>
>"Mikegriffith1" <mikegr...@cs.com> wrote in message
>news:20030101083731...@mb-cc.news.cs.com...
>> I guess the ultimate question is, Did the South have the right to secede?
>------------
>Not unilaterally. In order to secede they would have to have the consent of
>the other parties to the constitutional compact, the people of the other
>states.
I'm glad to see you refer to the C. as a compact Cash. But, if you
really consider it one, then you must know that in the analog, if we
use Locke's model, then any of the compact members can return to a
state of nature if they perceive that the "government" to which they
assigned some of their sovereignty has abused its trust. Now, in the
analog, the participants are the states - individually - and the feds.
So, there is no need for permission from the "people." BTW, in
historical circles (in which I do not travel 8-)) I'm told that there
never was a specific designation of just who "the people" were. Its a
caution.
<snip>
>> The states formed the federal government. The states began as soverign
>> entities. They voluntarily formed a federal union. Therefore, it would
>seem
>> to me that if a state or a group of states then decided to leave the
>union,
>> that they should be able to do so, even if for an unjust reason.
>--------------
>Not true. The states did not form the federal government. The people of
>the United States formed the federal government. The Union existed prior to
>the ratification of the Constitution.
Well, this is were it gets interesting. See, the state rightsmen of
the ilk of John Taylor of Caroline, also argued that the people were
the source of power. But, according to their theory, the people
assigned their sovereignty to the individual states. Thus, the states,
through the people, "formed the federal government." Its just a
different theory that is every bit as logical and compelling as the
one you quote and this has been recognized by historians for years.
<snip>
>> I think one reason that pro-Confederate writers argue that slavery wasn't
>the
>> chief cause of the Civil War is that Lincoln said he was willing to agree
Lets get one thing straight here. There are many causation theorists.
To label them pro-Confederate or pro-Union is not helpful. Some do not
think slavery was the central cause. This does not make them
pro-Confederate!
<snip>
Chuck Pinnegar
Chuck Pinnegar
wrote:
<snip>
>So how can one
>make
>> the argument that no state could ever leave the union?
>-------------------
>James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, made such an argument. He
>said that no state could unilaterally leave the Union. Once the people of a
>state freely entered the Union they made a solemn compact with the people of
>all the other states, and they could not be released from that compact
>except by consent of the other parties to the compact.
Now, it is well-known that Madison was an advocate of Locke's compact
theory. And, if you followed my argument in another part of this
thread you know that the above cannot possibly follow from that
theory. (I do not mean Cash has quoted it incorrectly) Any individual
(state) can return to a state of nature (secede/rebel?). I've thought
about this for some research I'm doing now and concluded that this
argument is in the same vein as Madison's turning Montesquieu's theory
of small republics on its head. He needed a new theory and this one
fit (in 1830+).
Chuck Pinnegar
Gregory E. Garland
>
> Lets get one thing straight here. There are many causation theorists.
> To label them pro-Confederate or pro-Union is not helpful. Some do not
> think slavery was the central cause. This does not make them
> pro-Confederate!
However unlikely that premise is, it does show them to be apparently
completely ignorant of the reason the secessionists themselves
stated as the sole reason for their action. Of course, there
is the possibility that they are not ignorant, but deliberately
lying. There is no third choice that is supported by the historical
record. We leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which
category Chuckie lies (ooooh) in.
Cash
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 00:03:01 GMT, "Cash" <Cas...@hawaii.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mikegriffith1" <mikegr...@cs.com> wrote in message
> >news:20030101083731...@mb-cc.news.cs.com...
> >> I guess the ultimate question is, Did the South have the right to
secede?
> >------------
> >Not unilaterally. In order to secede they would have to have the consent
of
> >the other parties to the constitutional compact, the people of the other
> >states.
>
> I'm glad to see you refer to the C. as a compact Cash. But, if you
> really consider it one, then you must know that in the analog, if we
> use Locke's model, then any of the compact members can return to a
> state of nature if they perceive that the "government" to which they
> assigned some of their sovereignty has abused its trust.
None of the states who gave reasons for secession accused the federal
government of abusing its trust, or to use Madison's terminology usurpations
or abuses of power. Had their citizens been denied their natural rights
they would have a case. This was not what happened, though.
Now, in the
> analog, the participants are the states - individually - and the feds.
--------------
Not according to Madison. Madison tells us the parties to the compact are
the people "as embodied into the states.
<snip>
> >> The states formed the federal government. The states began as soverign
> >> entities. They voluntarily formed a federal union. Therefore, it
would
> >seem
> >> to me that if a state or a group of states then decided to leave the
> >union,
> >> that they should be able to do so, even if for an unjust reason.
> >--------------
> >Not true. The states did not form the federal government. The people of
> >the United States formed the federal government. The Union existed prior
to
> >the ratification of the Constitution.
>
> Well, this is were it gets interesting. See, the state rightsmen of
> the ilk of John Taylor of Caroline, also argued that the people were
> the source of power. But, according to their theory, the people
> assigned their sovereignty to the individual states. Thus, the states,
> through the people, "formed the federal government." Its just a
> different theory that is every bit as logical and compelling as the
> one you quote and this has been recognized by historians for years.
-----------------------
It may have been recognized by *some* historians, but clearly not *all*
historians. Also, it was not recognized that way by the man who wrote the
vast majority of the Constitution. James Madison said, "Applying a like
view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact
being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure
release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be
dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses
of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there
is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to
dissolve it at pleasure." [James Madison to Nicholas Trist, 15 Feb 1830]
Because the people embodied in the states are the ones who are the parties
to the compact, only the people embodied in the states can release the
people of a state from the compact, assuming no usurpations or abuses.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
Madison used compact law for his formulations. I don't believe Madison
thought Locke's view to be sacrosanct. It goes without saying he was
willing to disregard Montesquieu and his theory of small republics. ISTM he
used the law as it existed and applied it.
Regards,
Cash
Maxwelton
That is an answer that we will never know. Of course it could of
meant that slavery continued longer in the western hemisphere than
when it did end. However, we also don't know if slavery could have
ended in the south through the same relatively peaceful means as
it ended in these other locations.
Chuck Pinnegar
wrote:
<snip>
>> Now, it is well-known that Madison was an advocate of Locke's compact
>> theory. And, if you followed my argument in another part of this
>> thread you know that the above cannot possibly follow from that
>> theory. (I do not mean Cash has quoted it incorrectly) Any individual
>> (state) can return to a state of nature (secede/rebel?). I've thought
>> about this for some research I'm doing now and concluded that this
>> argument is in the same vein as Madison's turning Montesquieu's theory
>> of small republics on its head. He needed a new theory and this one
>> fit (in 1830+).
>-----------------------
>Madison used compact law for his formulations. I don't believe Madison
>thought Locke's view to be sacrosanct. It goes without saying he was
>willing to disregard Montesquieu and his theory of small republics. ISTM he
>used the law as it existed and applied it.
Yep! Madison was a caution. When he needed a theory to back up his
assertions he often made one up to fit the situation. And, the
important point is that often he turned out to be right. For example,
Montesquieu in his Spirit of Laws, examined different governments, as
was the custom among Enlightenment political philosophers, and
concluded that republics only worked in small geographic locales. Of
course, this did not appeal to Madison in 1787 so he just asserted,
with no evidence, the opposite since he knew the Antis would use Mont.
against him. And, it looks like he may turn out to be correct.8-)
Chuck Pinnegar
Chuck Pinnegar
Its always instructive to read your posts Mr. Garland. Now, you are
happy in the knowledge that you - with the insights gleaned from your
copious study of the historical record - have the single answer to the
problem of causation and that all those who differ from you are
mendacious cretins whose years of research into the field were
organized to "protect" the South from nasty aspersions. Oh, BTW, since
you like exercises here's one for you. Could you give us a brief
answer by tomorrow? According to your causation theory the southern
Gulf states seceded because they wanted to protect slavery. But the
border states, also slave states, did not. They did not secede until
months later when Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to coerce the Gulf
Squadron back into the Union. Now, Mr. Garland, if your theory is
immutable, why didn't the border states leave when the Deep South did?
Chuck Pinnegar
Chuck Pinnegar
<je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org> wrote:
>
>"Chuck Pinnegar" <cpin...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>news:3e13ab3c...@news.cogeco.ca...
>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 23:24:44 GMT, "Trish Winston"
>> <trishw...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >Each state joined voluntarily, but not after considerable compromise, one
>of
>> >those being slavery. Having joined, it makes no sense to say that they
>> >could withdraw without consent of the other states.
>>
>> You are welcome to your assertion but, for the record, hundreds of
>> thousands disagreed with it, and that's all that mattered.
>>
>> Chuck Pinnegar
>
>Au contraire, hundreds of thousands, even millions agreed with it. So it
>does matter.
You get no argument from me Jeff. My point was, and is, that there
were scillions of people willing to secede which seems to be prima
facie evidence against the idea that "it makes no sense."
Chuck Pinnegar
Chuck Pinnegar
<je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org> wrote:
<snip>
>> >There was no "evidence".
>>
>> Maybe, but ISTR that the President of the United States made it plain
>> to the South that he intended to circumvent a SC decision that had
>> favorable implications for that section.
>
>Cite and source if you please. Then make your argument.
Suppose I find the citation. Will you then admit that you are in
error? Its a tough call. Did I make it up or do I really have the
evidence?
Chuck Pinnegar
Maxwelton
> I guess the ultimate question is, Did the South have the right to secede?
>
> though it wanted to secede in order to preserve the disgusting institution of
> slavery.
>
> In other words, even though the South's reason for wanting to secede may have
> been unjust, didn't it still have the right to secede, since it was composed of
> sovereign states?
That's right the union of states existed before the constitution was
ever ratified. Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation ensure
that each state is sovereign.
>
> The states formed the federal government. The states began as soverign
> entities. They voluntarily formed a federal union. Therefore, it would seem
> to me that if a state or a group of states then decided to leave the union,
> that they should be able to do so, even if for an unjust reason.
In practically all cases this is the view point from an open mind
and sometimes labeled pro-confederate.
If several countries left the European Union should the others have
the right to force them back? Or say some NATO countries chose
to leave the organization, would the others use force to keep
them from leaving? Should West Virginia have paid back Virginia what
state material was in their border when after all it was the locals
that help put it there? Or even if say you and 9 other farmers formed
a co-op. After disagreeing on matters you and 3 others decide it
is best for you to form your own group. You keep a proportional
amount of equipment that was collectively built and paid for in
part by you leaving a proportional amount to the others. Is
this stealing when after all it was your work and money that
put it there? The confederate states took federal
installations within their borders. It is amazing that some
people see this as an action of war as if the people of the south
were outsiders that came and took something that didn't belong to them.
It became part of their justification for war.
>I wonder what would have happened if Lincoln had just
>accepted the Confederacy >and had tried to get along with it
>rather than going to war against it.
There is no reason it couldn't have had a peaceful resolve.
Gregory E. Garland
>
> According to your causation theory the southern
> Gulf states seceded because they wanted to protect slavery. But the
> border states, also slave states, did not. They did not secede until
> months later when Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to coerce the Gulf
> Squadron back into the Union. Now, Mr. Garland, if your theory is
> immutable, why didn't the border states leave when the Deep South did?
Nice try, Chuckie. _When_ they left is not relevant to the
question of _why_ they left. Jefferson Davis forced them to
choose between standing with the Deep South states in
a civil war to establish a nation whose sole and explicitly
stated reason for being was to perpetuate slavery, or to
stand with the rest of the country to preserve the Union. Most
of the Upper South decided that if war has come then they
will fight for slavery. There was no other issue.
Chuck Pinnegar
<trishw...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>>Having joined, it makes no sense to say that they
>> >could withdraw without consent of the other states.
>>
>> You are welcome to your assertion but, for the record, hundreds of
>> thousands disagreed with it, and that's all that mattered.
>>
>> Chuck Pinnegar
>
>--------------------------------
>So what. Millions of people believed Ptolemy and thought the earth was the
>center of the universe. They were wrong. The earth is not the center of
>the universe and neither, apparently, is *The South*.
You have a wonderful knack at making up nonsequitors. It is truly
breathtaking. First, you assert something that with no trouble anyone
can show is nonsense. It was sheer opinion (the one-you). I remained
on that level and stated a fact of sheer opinion (the many-seceding
Confederates) to show that yours was not universally tenable ("you are
welcome to your assertion"). In effect, some agree with you and some
don't which makes your assertion false.
Seeing the error in your thinking, you then invent your Ptolemy
example. Clearly, it is not applicable because the original dispute
between us was between two opinions (or sets of differing opinions)
whereas your Ptolomy example sets up a clash between opinion and
scientific fact. Got it? If you think about it, you can never
analogize this set of circumstances because of the uncertainty of
"opinion." Analogy is a bitch isn't it?
You mean "The South" isn't the center of the universe? Oops, sorry,
just more of your nonseqs. But, I'll admit, you do it with style and
panache.
Chuck Pinnegar
Chuck Pinnegar
Geoff Blankenmeyer
> mikegr...@cs.com (Mikegriffith1) wrote in message news:<20030101083731...@mb-cc.news.cs.com>...
>
>>I guess the ultimate question is, Did the South have the right to secede?
>>
>>On that point, it seems to me the South may have been on valid ground, even
>>though it wanted to secede in order to preserve the disgusting institution of
>>slavery.
>>
>>In other words, even though the South's reason for wanting to secede may have
>>been unjust, didn't it still have the right to secede, since it was composed of
>>sovereign states?
>>
>
> That's right the union of states existed before the constitution was
> ever ratified. Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation ensure
> that each state is sovereign.
Unless "in a matter expressly delegated to the US". Even in that
case sovereignty was stricytly limited.
>
>>The states formed the federal government. The states began as soverign
>>entities. They voluntarily formed a federal union. Therefore, it would seem
>>to me that if a state or a group of states then decided to leave the union,
>>that they should be able to do so, even if for an unjust reason.
> If several countries left the European Union should the others have
> the right to force them back?
Grand oversimplification. No war began over the simple matter of
secession.
> It became part of their justification for war.
So shooting at a federal fortress meant nothing?
>>I wonder what would have happened if Lincoln had just
>>accepted the Confederacy >and had tried to get along with it
>>rather than going to war against it.
>>
>
> There is no reason it couldn't have had a peaceful resolve.
The South sought redress through arms. And lost.
Geoff
Chuck Pinnegar
I'm glad to see that your answer did not take the full 24 hours. Its
evident that during your years of study you pondered this question and
organized the thoughtful response above. Its interesting that you give
no weight to Lincoln's call for troops. Now, you know from your
studies that Va. was in convention at exactly that time and had
indicated no desire to secede, but did so immediately upon its
receipt. But, perhaps that fact has been made up by pro-Confederate
historians who edited the record. Your "when they left" "why they
left" dodge is particularly personalized. Most readers would realize
that "when they left" is crucial because the intervening time could be
filled with events that would affect/change/solidify the actions of
the people involved. But, in your unique way, you cannot contemplate
that which challenges your preconceived opinions. So be it.
Chuck Pinnegar
Mikegriffith1
the right to secede. On several occasions leaders in New England, including
Massachusetts, urged or threatened secession over certain issues, such as the
War of 1812.
In reading the writings of the founders regarding the 10th Amendment, it seems
the intent was clearly to reserve to the states all rights that were not
specifically granted to the federal government.
In the Treaty of Paris, each of the colonial states was recognized as a
sovereign entity.
It's virtually certain that several states would not have ratified the
Constitution if the 10th Amendment hadn't been included.
As one reads the founders, it becomes quite clear that most of them were
fearful of creating an all-powerful federal government. They wanted the federal
government's powerful severely limited and wanted all other powers to be
retained by the states.
I'm pretty much brand new to Civil War research, but I have done a little
reading on the more general topic of states rights and the Constitution. And
it seems to me that on the issue of secession, the South had the stronger
arguments.
Mikegriffith1
of covenant from which there is no lawful exit by a single State on its own
authority. >>>
But we're not talking about just one state but several states, eleven in total.
If states joined the Union voluntarily, why couldn't they leave it voluntarily
as well?
Mikegriffith1
individual nation-state sovereignty. If they wanted to 'legally' regain that
sovereignty they have to ask the entity to whom they gave it (i.e., the people
of the United States) to give it back; it is no longer in the individual
state's power to take it back on demand. >>>
Well, I don't agree with you here. I think you'd have a hard time defending
this view with statements from the founders and from the state constitutions
and ratifying ordinances. Thomas Jefferson certainly viewed the states as
sovereign entities. The whole reason behind the 10th Amendment was to assuage
fears that an all-powerful federal government was about to be formed. A number
of leaders and politicians in the North certainly believed states had the right
to secede, as they threatened or urged secession on a couple of occasions, such
as over the War of 1812.
Mikegriffith1
could withdraw without consent of the other states. Trish >>>
I don't follow this reasoning. Nowhere, in any document, did any state
expressly forfeit or dismiss the right to secede from the union that they were
voluntarily joining, and at least two states expressly reserved the right to
secede when they passed ratification ordinances. The compromises that they
made did not include surrendering the right to leave the union if at some point
they felt the need to do so.
Mikegriffith1
said that no state could unilaterally leave the Union. Once the people of a
state freely entered the Union they made a solemn compact with the people of
all the other states, and they could not be released from that compact except
by consent of the other parties to the compact. >>>
Other founding fathers did not take this view. The framers of both the
Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were so concerned with
protecting the sovereignty of the States that it was expressly written into
each document. It took the form of Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation
which stated,
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every
power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly
delegated to the United States."
In the Constitution of 1789, the protection of the sovereignty of the states
was included in the forms of the ninth and tenth amendments which stated,
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" and "The powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."
Please understand that I'm only discussing the question of states rights and
secession. I'm not trying to side with the South's position on all issues. My
only point here is that it seems to me the South had the right to secede, even
if we now view its reasons as untenable.
Mikegriffith1
subjects of the Civil War, secession, and the Confederate flag are highly
charged and polarized in the extreme.
I think southern writers would have a more tenable overall position on these
issues if the South didn't have such a long history of ugly racism. For
decades after the Civil War, African Americans were horribly mistreated in
states like Mississippi and Alabama. Blacks were lynched, whipped, and
otherwise mistreated. All-white juries acquitted white mem who were clearly
guilty of having killed blacks. Blacks were forced into segregated schools and
compelled to use separate toilets and other facilities. Southern police forces
frequently mistreated and framed African Americans. People look at these facts
and then find it hard to accept the argument that the Civil War wasn't really
about slavery or that the Confederate battle flag is not a symbol of racism,
even though technically it's no more such a symbol than is the Stars and
Stripes.
Hugh Lawson
> At least two of the states that ratified the Constitution expressly reserved
> the right to secede.
While many believe this, it won't IMHO stand up under examination. Go
to the site printed below and work your way to the Constitution
ratification documents.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/major.htm
> In reading the writings of the founders regarding the 10th
> Amendment, it seems the intent was clearly to reserve to the states
> all rights that were not specifically granted to the federal
> government.
What they actually did reserve "to the States, respectively, or to the
People" were the powers not granted to the federal government, and
those powers not denied to the States.
> It's virtually certain that several states would not have ratified the
> Constitution if the 10th Amendment hadn't been included.
The tenth was added later, after the C was already in effect. But even
so, it gives nobody a right of secession.
> As one reads the founders, it becomes quite clear that most of them
> were fearful of creating an all-powerful federal government. They
> wanted the federal government's powerful severely limited and wanted
> all other powers to be retained by the states.
The anti-federalists brought up over and over the dangers of the new
powerful government in their campaigns to block ratification. I've
never see a single piece of evidence that either they or the
federalists thought there was a right of single-state secession in the
constitution. There may be such evidence, but I've never seen it. Do
you know of any?
> I'm pretty much brand new to Civil War research, but I have done a little
> reading on the more general topic of states rights and the Constitution. And
> it seems to me that on the issue of secession, the South had the stronger
> arguments.
I think if you study this more closely you'll want to revise this
opinion. I think the most that can be said is that the secessionists
had some plausible arguments that had local credibility.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Mikegriffith1
out. >>>
To which I would ask, Why not?
Just on the general principle of freedom of choice and freedom of association,
if a group of states decides they would like to form a separate nation, on what
moral grounds can they be forced to remain in a union that they no longer want
to retain membership? As long as they don't pose a clear and present danger to
the existing union, and if they are willing to live in peace as a separate
nation, how can using force to prevent their leaving be ethically justified?
This is the big problem I see in how Lincoln handled secession. It seems to me
that hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared if he had adopted
the course advocated by Stephen Douglas. The South expressed a desire to live
in peace as a separate nation. Would it have been so unthinkable to at least
try to peacefully coexist for a few years? It's quite possible that
mechanization of agriculture would have virtually wiped out slavery in the next
decade or so anyway. In the meantime, many things could have been done, short
of war, to pressure the South along the road of abolition. There were, after
all, forces in the South that favored abolition.
Hugh Lawson
[ snip ]
> Please understand that I'm only discussing the question of states
> rights and secession. I'm not trying to side with the South's
> position on all issues. My only point here is that it seems to me
> the South had the right to secede, even if we now view its reasons
> as untenable.
Whose arguments do you rely on for this opinion?
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Chuck Pinnegar
wrote:
<SNIP>
>> I'm glad to see you refer to the C. as a compact Cash. But, if you
>> really consider it one, then you must know that in the analog, if we
>> use Locke's model, then any of the compact members can return to a
>> state of nature if they perceive that the "government" to which they
>> assigned some of their sovereignty has abused its trust.
>------------------
>None of the states who gave reasons for secession accused the federal
>government of abusing its trust, or to use Madison's terminology usurpations
>or abuses of power. Had their citizens been denied their natural rights
>they would have a case. This was not what happened, though.
Well, lets look at the Virginia ordinance since that's the one that
I'm familiar with. I'll use caps to indicate my input.
AN ORDINANCE
to repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of
America, by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights and
powers granted under said Constitution.
THIS IS THE CLASSICAL COMPACT METHOD OF
WITHDRAWING FROM A GOVERNMENT THAT
HAS ABUSED ITS TRUST. THE WITHDRAWING
ENTITY REVERTS TO ITS PREVIOUS CONDITION.
NOTE THAT THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO A CLAUSE
OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS THE COMPACT BETWEEN
THE STATES IN A STATE OF NATURE AND IS REJECTED
IN TOTO.
The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the constitution of
the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the
twenty-fifth day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted
under the said constitution were derived from the people of the United
States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted
to their injury and oppression; and the federal government having
perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of
Virginia, but to the oppression of the southern slaveholding states:
NOW THE CONVENTION GETS SPECIFIC, REFERRING TO ITS
INTERPRETATION OF VIRGINIA'S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.
BUT, THE ORGANIZATION IS CLEARLY LOCKEAN. NOTE
"PERVERTED" ETC. NOTE: I'M NOT ARGUING WHETHER ANY
OF THIS IS TRUE OR FALSE JUST WHAT ITS FORM IS.
Now, therefore, we the people of Virginia do declare and ordain, that
the ordinance adopted by the people of this state in convention on the
twenty-fifth day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the constitution of the United
States of America was ratified, and all acts of the general assembly
of this state ratifying or adopting amendments to said constitution,
are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the state of
Virginia and the other states under the constitution aforesaid is
hereby dissolved, and that the state of Virginia is in the full
possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong
and appertain to a free and independent state.
REPEALED AND ABROGATED, UNION DISSOLVED, RIGHTS
OF SOVEREIGNTY. YEP, THAT'S COMPACT THEORY FOR
SURE.
And they do further declare, that said constitution of the United
States of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this
state.
This ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day, when
ratified by a majority of the votes of the people of this state, cast
at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in
pursuance of a schedule hereafter to be enacted.
Done in convention, in the City of Richmond, on the seventeenth day of
April in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
sixty-one, and in the eighty-fifth year of the commonwealth of
Virginia.
Ratified May 23, 1861, by a referendum vote of 132,201 for and 37,451
against.
>
>
>Now, in the
>> analog, the participants are the states - individually - and the feds.
>--------------
>Not according to Madison. Madison tells us the parties to the compact are
>the people "as embodied into the states.
Sure, just like John Taylor did. That way, you can have it both ways.
8-)
<snip>
>> Well, this is were it gets interesting. See, the state rightsmen of
>> the ilk of John Taylor of Caroline, also argued that the people were
>> the source of power. But, according to their theory, the people
>> assigned their sovereignty to the individual states. Thus, the states,
>> through the people, "formed the federal government." Its just a
>> different theory that is every bit as logical and compelling as the
>> one you quote and this has been recognized by historians for years.
>-----------------------
>It may have been recognized by *some* historians, but clearly not *all*
>historians. Also, it was not recognized that way by the man who wrote the
>vast majority of the Constitution.
Not really. Most of what Madison proposed in the Virginia Plan was
rejected. But, he was certainly a powerful influence once it became
apparent that the Senate was not going to go his way and he better
start working for Va.
>James Madison said, "Applying a like
>view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact
>being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure
>release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be
>dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses
>of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there
>is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to
>dissolve it at pleasure." [James Madison to Nicholas Trist, 15 Feb 1830]
Ah James, you certainly know how to misquote Locke. But, he finally
gets down to it when he admits that "The compact can only be dissolved
by the consent of the other parties [which is Madisonian but not
Lockean] or by usurpations of power justly having that effect [which
Locke would recognize.] Doesn't this make my point?
>Because the people embodied in the states are the ones who are the parties
>to the compact, only the people embodied in the states can release the
>people of a state from the compact, assuming no usurpations or abuses.
I'm not sure about the embodied stuff, the phrase is not familiar to
me so I cannot comment except to say that the theory leaves the
decision on the level of abuse up to the partners, as individuals, in
the compact.
Chuck Pinnegar
Mikegriffith1
show that the rate of *growth* in the number of slaves was declining. But
this, again, was a reduction in the GROWTH rate. Thus, the slave population
was still growing shortly before the war, although the rate of growth was
declining.
By inference, one could say that therefore eventually the growth rate would
have reached zero and then would have gone into the negative column. That,
however, could have taken many years.
On the other hand, would not modernization have eliminated the need for slavery
in the near future?
One problem I see with the Confederate position is that it's pretty hard to
argue that the slaves were better off as slaves than as free men and women. I
come to this subject as someone who has long believed in states rights. But,
there is a problem when the principle of states rights is invoked to preserve a
disgusting institution like slavery. The temptation is to throw out the
principle with the practice that it's invoked to protect, and that's
unfortunate.
I've now spent several hours over the last few days reading material on the
Civil War. I'm led to ask, Why did Lincoln have to rush to armed conflict with
the South? Why couldn't he have tried to live peacefully with the South and
then use other means, other pressures, short of war, to encourage the South
along the abolitionist path?
And, by the way, I come into this dialogue as a newcomer who has long believed
in affirmative action and minority set-asides. Some of these pro-Confederate
sites make me uncomfortable with certain of their comments about African
Americans.
Geoff Blankenmeyer
Pardon the intrusion folks. And pardon the many bytes below.
But the Locke/Montesquieu application gets to turnin' my rusty
wheels a bit as well. First, the appeal to Locke is seen with
some frequency here. That being the agreements between the
states we have come to know as the Articles of Confederation,
subsequently supplanted by the Constitution were in fact
compacts. The one principle that is most important in this
debate is Locke's concept that compacts are voluntary agreements
in which any member can opt out (my words) if decisions of other
members violate the letter of the compact. The principle under
which this option is granted/taken is the ability of the state to
remove itself from the positive law of the compact thereby
returning it to a state of nature. This has my thoughts gyrating
in several directions.
First and the most basic is that Lockean concept is one that
counters the Madisonian contract language. In it, Madison pretty
much states, once you are in, you are in for the duration. Not
that I am attempting to bridge the gaps or whittle down the
language between Locke and Madison; others would simply do a
better job, I have always found it interesting that the real
course of secession did not follow this train of thought. Well,
that is if you subscribe to the Calhounian pov. Calhoun flatly
rejected the state of nature argument and instead held that
states always were and always would be sovereign. He even went
so far as to denounce Madison's stated "divided sovereignty"
aspect of individual states and the collective. Simply put,
states were sovereign, they could come and go as they pleased.
Or so he said in his Disquisition.
But allow me to temper that fine point by stating that I realize
Calhoun was not being debated in the above. It is Madison's
interpretation of Locke and his (if I may) gerryrigging the
language to suit his needs at the time, i.e. once *the people*
voluntarily entered, they could not voluntarily depart. However
if my interpretation of Locke is correct, once man has
voluntarily agreed to being under a state of positive law, he
then removes himself from a state of nature. Conversely, the
only way to remove himself from positive law is to return to a
state of nature. If I am accurate in my interpretation, please
read further. If not, carry on.
My point is that once a man has removed himself from positive
law, that positive law which bound all things together no longer
exists for those removed. As Locke states, "A state also of
equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal,
no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident
than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously
born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same
faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without
subordination or subjection". Good so far. But that is not how
it occurred. Southerners as a collective (I won't go so far as
to mention those of chattel status) were in no shape or form
returned to a status of natural law. They still remained under
positive law of states that determined to be their
representative, whether that individual wanted that arrangement
or no. For all intent and purpose, Lockean conceptualization of
secession\revolution was limited in it's scope. Namely those who
sought to use it. Not a very judicious application, imo anyway.
But prudence is not at stake here. Accuracy is. And to say
that secession was in fact an exercise in Lockean "state of
nature" is; imvho, inaccurate. Those theorists who pronounced
that remedy to be an effective one would not have seen the merits
of their labors had they lived to it's fruition.
And there is more. The "more" would be the application of
positive law. And that positive law has it's roots in
Montesquieu. To quote, "Should a popular insurrection happen in
one of the confederate states, the others are able to quell it.
Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those
that remain sound. The state may be destroyed on one side, and
not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the
confederates preserve their sovereignty."
Reading the entire paragraph, it might seem that it is a complete
non sequitur. How can "a popular insurrection" be "quelled" if
the "state may be destroyed on one side, and not on the other"
and that the "confederacy may be dissolved and the confederates
preserve their sovereignty"? I am sure that there are many
answers to many people. Or just a yin and a yang. But in either
event, I do feel that Montesquieu's pronouncement of positive law
on small republics was in harmony with what occurred in the
United States of 1787 and 1861. First, the formation of the
American Constitution. Without going into great detail, one
notable event that pushed home the ineffectiveness of the
Articles of Confederation was that of Shay's Rebellion. A
rebellion that was more than just a pitting of the New England
merchant class against "the social structure of the rural
agrarian class" over the issue of taxation (where have we seen
this before). The critical battle of the rebellion was Shays'
attack on the government arsenal at Springfield in January 1787,
in short federal property. The rebellion itself precipitated, if
only in part, the ratification of the Constitution and most
notably the language that allowed the fed to put down domestic
insurrections. insurrections aimed at denying the fed it's
property. Granted, the societal tensions of Shays' Rebellion
were reflected in the ratification votes of the states most
affected by the insurrection; Massachusetts men being former
Shays rebels, ratification proceeded anyway.
The point to all of this Shays discussion is not merely to
demonstrate that the fed had cause for redress in instances that
they determine to be an insurrection. It is also to show that
there is a second side to the Lockean coin. And that side would
fit nicely into Montesquieu's conundrum. How can a popular
insurrection be quelled through positive law if that insurrection
is determined to be a dissolution of the confederacy so the
confederates may preserve their sovereignty? The only answer I
can come up with is that once the Secessionists declared their
intent, those states they declared sovereign in fact no longer
existed. But federal and personal property did. Locke is quite
clear on this matter, I believe. And so is the right to defend
it. Which, when you boil it all down, is what actually occurred.
But that is just my 2¢ on the matter.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled program.
Geoff
Chuck Pinnegar
wrote:
Hey Hugh,
This Mike feller sure seems to know a lot for a professed beginner. If
he asks for a definition of "the people", doesn't get one, and then
provides a cogent one, I'm headin' for the hills when he criticizes
me. 8-)
Chuck Pinnegar
Hugh Lawson
Well, I'll want to see how his positions hold up under critique.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
Gregory E. Garland
>
>
> I'm glad to see that your answer did not take the full 24 hours. Its
> evident that during your years of study you pondered this question and
> organized the thoughtful response above. Its interesting that you give
> no weight to Lincoln's call for troops. Now, you know from your
> studies that Va. was in convention at exactly that time and had
> indicated no desire to secede, but did so immediately upon its
> receipt.
Poor little Chuckie...still desperately clinging to his blinders
despite all attempts to gently remove them. What exactly was
Virginia in convention for at that time? What was the one issue
that drove the actions of the secessionists?
> But, perhaps that fact has been made up by pro-Confederate
> historians who edited the record. Your "when they left" "why they
> left" dodge is particularly personalized. Most readers would realize
> that "when they left" is crucial because the intervening time could be
> filled with events that would affect/change/solidify the actions of
> the people involved.
"Could be filled" is not the same as "were filled", Chuckie. The
only question to be answered by the secession conventions was whether
to break up the Union over slavery; it was the only reason such
conventions even existed. The simple fact is that Virginia
and the rest of the Upper South states that went out chose to
join the fight to establish a nation dedicated to the preservation
of slavery, and the only reason they joined that fight was their
own desire to perpetuate and preserve that sad institution. No matter
how much you squeal and whine and stick your head in the sand, you
will never be able to alter that basic fact of history, Chuckerino.
Gregory E. Garland
>
> <<< Because what they 'volunteered' to do was to give up any notion of
> individual nation-state sovereignty. If they wanted to 'legally' regain that
> sovereignty they have to ask the entity to whom they gave it (i.e., the people
> of the United States) to give it back; it is no longer in the individual
> state's power to take it back on demand. >>>
>
> Well, I don't agree with you here. I think you'd have a hard time
> defending this view with statements from the founders and from
> the state constitutions and ratifying ordinances.
No, it is trivially easy to so. The proper name for the original
document forming the Union is 'The Articles of Confederation and
Perpetual Union'. The entire purpose of the Philadelphia Constitutional
convention was create a stronger federal government because the
one in place under the AoC was proving so weak that the Union might
split asunder.
> Thomas Jefferson certainly viewed the states as sovereign entities.
> The whole reason behind the 10th Amendment was to assuage fears that
> an all-powerful federal government was about to be formed.
...and that's just about all the 10th amendment does; it would be
hard to find a portion of the Constitution more empty of any actual
effect.
> A number of leaders and politicians in the North certainly believed
> states had the right to secede, as they threatened or urged secession
> on a couple of occasions, such as over the War of 1812.
I assume you are referring to the Hartford convention of Federalist
party members. Even though some of the participants did raise the
issue, I think you will find that the majority did not agree and
no such call for secession was made. Nevertheless, the mere rumor
that such a thing had been discussed effectively destroyed the
Federalist party as a viable entity because of the outrage it
caused.
Geoff Blankenmeyer
> <<< The short story, volunteer in, in no way implies the ability to volunteer
> out. >>>
>
> To which I would ask, Why not?
Just on the face of the question, basic logic says otherwise.
Going from A to B does not imply you can do the reverse. Not to
be sarcastic, but try it in a swift river.
> Just on the general principle of freedom of choice and freedom of association,
> if a group of states decides they would like to form a separate nation, on what
> moral grounds can they be forced to remain in a union that they no longer want
> to retain membership?
But the US Constitution was not a covenant of morals. The
question usually bandied about was whether it was a compact or a
binding contract. A compact, if you follow Locke, can revert
under certain circumstances and in a prescribed manner. A
contract is as I stated, binding on all parties who signed it.
> As long as they don't pose a clear and present danger to
> the existing union
Some saw secession as being "a clear and present danger" and had
pretty good arguments to back them up.
> and if they are willing to live in peace as a separate
> nation, how can using force to prevent their leaving be ethically justified?
This thing about ethics, justification, morality and the like
really weakens the case when you consider the greatest moral
conundrum sat at the heart of and can easily be argued as the
cause of secession, namely chattel slavery. But then again, this
really is not about crimes of the heart, it is about positive
law. It has been argued that secession broke the positive law of
the Constitution. At worst, it at least tried it. But no court
but that of the rifled barrel could hear its case. That is until
1869. But then again, some will say that decision was obiter.
And on it goes.
> This is the big problem I see in how Lincoln handled secession. It seems to me
> that hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared if he had adopted
> the course advocated by Stephen Douglas. \
Nope. the South was not interested in Douglas' remedy. See
Bleeding Kansas.
> The South expressed a desire to live
> in peace as a separate nation.
Such as the Filibusters? Did not strong elements in the South
have an eye on Central America?, Cuba?, parts of Mexico?
> Would it have been so unthinkable to at least
> try to peacefully coexist for a few years?
And if it did not work out, do what? Rejoin? Pardon the
sarcasm, but what you suggest was not an option.
> It's quite possible that
> mechanization of agriculture would have virtually wiped out slavery in the next
> decade or so anyway.
That's just pure hubris, not on your part anyway, but the point
remains. There has been no good argument to indicate that
slavery would die away in such a short time. But that really is
a side show to the big show. Like Lincoln said at Gettysburg, it
was a test to see if a nation "conceived in liberty could long
endure".
> In the meantime, many things could have been done, short
> of war, to pressure the South along the road of abolition. There were, after
> all, forces in the South that favored abolition.
And being hung, tarred or simply run out of town for their
efforts. I haven't seen anything to suggest that these would
have been resurrected in the South had secession been successful.
But that is just my .02.
Geoff
Geoff Blankenmeyer
> With regard to the argument that slavery was starting to die out, statistics
> show that the rate of *growth* in the number of slaves was declining. But
> this, again, was a reduction in the GROWTH rate. Thus, the slave population
> was still growing shortly before the war, although the rate of growth was
> declining.
The problem with numbers is that when presented without context,
these tend to be rendered meaningless until someone gives these
meaning. the main issue here is that the South was avowedly
interested in spreading the institution of slavery. heck it was
Lincoln's avowed principle to limit that ability that figured
into the dilemma.
> By inference, one could say that therefore eventually the growth rate would
> have reached zero and then would have gone into the negative column. That,
> however, could have taken many years.
One could. But then one could also and as easily point it in the
other direction.
> On the other hand, would not modernization have eliminated the need for slavery
> in the near future?
Why did not modernization eliminate with the reaper? Simply put,
slavery was not just an economic institution. It was a way of
life. No matter what station in life a white man held in the
South, he was always above that of a slave.
> One problem I see with the Confederate position is that it's pretty hard to
> argue that the slaves were better off as slaves than as free men and women. I
> come to this subject as someone who has long believed in states rights. But,
> there is a problem when the principle of states rights is invoked to preserve a
> disgusting institution like slavery. The temptation is to throw out the
> principle with the practice that it's invoked to protect, and that's
> unfortunate.
Speaking personally, that issue does not enter into the equation
when discussing secession, it's causes, legality and the like. i
think you will find that most people here can separate the two.
> I've now spent several hours over the last few days reading material on the
> Civil War. I'm led to ask, Why did Lincoln have to rush to armed conflict with
> the South?
Someone shot at his fort.
> Why couldn't he have tried to live peacefully with the South and
> then use other means, other pressures, short of war, to encourage the South
> along the abolitionist path?
He did. The South did not care for it. They chose war.
> And, by the way, I come into this dialogue as a newcomer who has long believed
> in affirmative action and minority set-asides. Some of these pro-Confederate
> sites make me uncomfortable with certain of their comments about African
> Americans.
Learning history via websites is a very tricky business.
Especially on such a very complicated topic as this. What you
will find is that these website managers pare down history to fit
their interpretation to met their needs. In short, these are
hardly objective. If I may, a lot are just a load of crap. Time
to hit the library, mayhaps?
Geoff
Mikegriffith1
union." However, when the Constitution was being drafted, the delegates
specifically moved to strike this wording.
The states used their authority to secede from the union formed by the Articles
of Confederation and then to accede to the new union (formed by the
Constitution) by ratification. The several states each held their own
Conventions where delegates selected by the people for this purpose met to
debate the benefits and risks of the proposed Constitution.
This being the case, I think it's a tough argument to make that once the states
voluntarily entered the union they were forever trapped therein.
I think you'd have a better argument if you gratned the right of secession but
then made the point that secession was opposed in this particular case in order
to free the slaves and to prevent the spread of slave-owning states. I think
that would be a better position than trying to deny that no state or even group
of states had the right to secede.
This, of course, begs the larger question, Did the North really use force to
preserve the union mainly in order to free the slaves? Or were other motives
more important and crucial?
Mikegriffith1
>> on the Civil War. I'm led to ask, Why did Lincoln have to rush to
>> armed conflict with the South?
>
> Someone shot at his fort.
I think Lincoln intentionally provoked the South into attacking Ft. Sumter. I
believe the following statement from the U.S. Civil War website sums up the
situation well:
"Attempts by the Confederate government to settle its differences with the
Union were spurned by Lincoln, and the Confederacy felt it could no longer
tolerate the presense of a foreign force in its territory. Believing a conflict
to be inevitable, Lincoln ingeniously devised a plan that would cause the
Confederates to fire the first shot and thus, he hoped, inspire the states that
had not yet seceded to unite in the effort to restore the Union."
(http://www.us-civilwar.com/sumter.htm)
On other hand, I think it was foolish for Gen. Beauregard to attack the fort.
He should have just surrounded it and left it alone.
William G. Davis
"Chuck Pinnegar" <cpin...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:3e1469fa...@news.cogeco.ca...
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 03:14:23 GMT, "William G. Davis"
> <je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chuck Pinnegar" <cpin...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> >news:3e13ab3c...@news.cogeco.ca...
> >> On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 23:24:44 GMT, "Trish Winston"
> >> <trishw...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >> >Each state joined voluntarily, but not after considerable compromise,
one
> >of
> >> >those being slavery. Having joined, it makes no sense to say that
they
> >> >could withdraw without consent of the other states.
> >>
> >> thousands disagreed with it, and that's all that mattered.
> >>
> >> Chuck Pinnegar
> >
> >does matter.
>
> You get no argument from me Jeff. My point was, and is, that there
> were scillions of people willing to secede which seems to be prima
> facie evidence against the idea that "it makes no sense."
>
> Chuck Pinnegar
Not when it was a con job. Like Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people,
some of the time..."
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"But words are things, and a small drop of ink,
Falling like dew, upon a thought, produces
That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think."
--Lord Byron
William G. Davis
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 03:08:11 GMT, "William G. Davis"
> <je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org> wrote:
> <snip>
> >> >There was no "evidence".
> >>
> >> Maybe, but ISTR that the President of the United States made it plain
> >> to the South that he intended to circumvent a SC decision that had
> >> favorable implications for that section.
> >
> >Cite and source if you please. Then make your argument.
>
> Suppose I find the citation. Will you then admit that you are in
> error? Its a tough call. Did I make it up or do I really have the
> evidence?
>
> Chuck Pinnegar
Can't answer that until I see it. Either put up or...but don't play games.
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"During my 87 years I have witnessed a whole succession
of technological revolutions. But none of them has done
away with the need for character in the individual or
the ability to think."
-Bernard M. Baruch
Cash
"Mikegriffith1" <mikegr...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030102160236...@mb-ct.news.cs.com...
> At least two of the states that ratified the Constitution expressly
reserved
> the right to secede.
No, they didn't. They reiterated the natural right of revolution
On several occasions leaders in New England, including
> Massachusetts, urged or threatened secession over certain issues, such as
the
> War of 1812.
----------------------------
Which "leaders" did you have in mind? There were some crackpots and some
radical Federalists such as Timothy Pickering, but nobody who had any
sizeable following.
>
> In reading the writings of the founders regarding the 10th Amendment, it
seems
> the intent was clearly to reserve to the states all rights that were not
> specifically granted to the federal government.
-----------------------------
Read it again. Governments don't have rights, people do. Governments have
powers, and the Tenth Amendment specifically excepts powers prohibited to
the states by the Constitution. Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution
prohibits anything in the constitution or laws of a state from denying the
supremacy of the US Constitution or the laws of the United States within the
boundaries of that state.
>
> In the Treaty of Paris, each of the colonial states was recognized as a
> sovereign entity.
----------------------------
Why, then, didn't representatives from each state sign the treaty?
>
> It's virtually certain that several states would not have ratified the
> Constitution if the 10th Amendment hadn't been included.
---------------------------
Are you sure about that? Better check the ratification dates for each state
for the Constitution and for the Bill of Rights. You'll find that the last
of the 13 original states, Rhode Island, ratified the Constitution May 29,
1790, but the Bill of Rights didn't become part of the Constitution until
Dec. 15, 1791. Congress didn't approve the 12 proposed amendments until
Sept 25, 1789, just about 2 months prior to North Carolina becoming the
twelfth state to ratify the Constitution. So 11 states ratified the
Constitution with no Bill of Rights even passed by Congress, and the
remaining two ratified the Constitution without the Bill of Rights being a
part of it. I suggest staying away from neoconfederate websites. They will
steer you wrong every single time.
>
> As one reads the founders, it becomes quite clear that most of them were
> fearful of creating an all-powerful federal government. They wanted the
federal
> government's powerful severely limited and wanted all other powers to be
> retained by the states.
------------------------
Better keep reading. It was the anti-Federalists who warned that the
Constitution provided too much power to the government. An easy way to
refute that would be to say if the government took too much power all a
state would have to do is secede. Funny that none of the Federalists
asserted such a power existed.
>
> I'm pretty much brand new to Civil War research, but I have done a little
> reading on the more general topic of states rights and the Constitution.
And
> it seems to me that on the issue of secession, the South had the stronger
> arguments.
-----------------------
Unfortunately you seem to have been reading neoconfederate propaganda which
has steered you wrong, as it will always do.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
> <<< By upholding a principle something like this: The Constitution is the
kind
> of covenant from which there is no lawful exit by a single State on its
own
> authority. >>>
>
> But we're not talking about just one state but several states, eleven in
total.
They each tried to leave one at a time, or singly.
>
> If states joined the Union voluntarily, why couldn't they leave it
voluntarily
> as well?
---------------
They could, provided they had the consent of the other parties to the
compact.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
> <<< Because what they 'volunteered' to do was to give up any notion of
> individual nation-state sovereignty. If they wanted to 'legally' regain
that
> sovereignty they have to ask the entity to whom they gave it (i.e., the
people
> of the United States) to give it back; it is no longer in the individual
> state's power to take it back on demand. >>>
>
> Well, I don't agree with you here. I think you'd have a hard time
defending
> this view with statements from the founders and from the state
constitutions
> and ratifying ordinances.
Really?
James Madison said state ratifications had to be in toto and forever. That
doesn't sound like a statement from a key Founder that supports secession.
Thomas Jefferson certainly viewed the states as
> sovereign entities.
-------------------
No, he didn't.
The whole reason behind the 10th Amendment was to assuage
> fears that an all-powerful federal government was about to be formed. A
number
> of leaders and politicians in the North certainly believed states had the
right
> to secede, as they threatened or urged secession on a couple of occasions,
such
> as over the War of 1812.
-----------------
The Tenth Amendment has nothing to do with secession, no matter how many
lying neoconfederates tell you it does.
Regards,
Cash
Geoff Blankenmeyer
> This being the case, I think it's a tough argument to make that once the states
> voluntarily entered the union they were forever trapped therein.
I don't think anyone here has made that argument. Don't confuse
"volunteer in does not necessarily grant volunteer out" with
"forever tapped". It's oversimplifying the case.
> I think you'd have a better argument if you gratned the right of secession but
> then made the point that secession was opposed in this particular case in order
> to free the slaves and to prevent the spread of slave-owning states. I think
> that would be a better position than trying to deny that no state or even group
> of states had the right to secede.
The above bends the facts just a bit. Secession was not opposed
to free the slaves. And it was not technically the right of
secession, but the right of unilateral, single state secession.
> This, of course, begs the larger question, Did the North really use force to
> preserve the union mainly in order to free the slaves? Or were other motives
> more important and crucial?
Preserve the Union.
GB
Cash
"Gregory E. Garland" <ge...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> > A number of leaders and politicians in the North certainly believed
> > states had the right to secede, as they threatened or urged secession
> > on a couple of occasions, such as over the War of 1812.
>
> I assume you are referring to the Hartford convention of Federalist
> party members. Even though some of the participants did raise the
> issue, I think you will find that the majority did not agree and
> no such call for secession was made. Nevertheless, the mere rumor
> that such a thing had been discussed effectively destroyed the
> Federalist party as a viable entity because of the outrage it
> caused.
------------------------
Absolutely right. Most neoconfederate websites point to the Hartford
Convention as the time when New England tried to secede. As usual, they are
full of manure. The Report of the Hartford Convention had not a single word
about secession in it.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
> <<< Each state joined voluntarily, but not after considerable compromise,
one
> of those being slavery. Having joined, it makes no sense to say that they
> could withdraw without consent of the other states. Trish >>>
>
> I don't follow this reasoning. Nowhere, in any document, did any state
> expressly forfeit or dismiss the right to secede from the union that they
were
> voluntarily joining,
Article VI, Clause 2.
and at least two states expressly reserved the right to
> secede when they passed ratification ordinances.
--------------------
No, this is not correct. They did not.
The compromises that they
> made did not include surrendering the right to leave the union if at some
point
> they felt the need to do so.
-------------------
See James Madison on what it took to leave the Union.
Regards,
Cash
Geoff Blankenmeyer
>>>I've now spent several hours over the last few days reading material
>>>on the Civil War. I'm led to ask, Why did Lincoln have to rush to
>>>armed conflict with the South?
>>>
>>Someone shot at his fort.
>>
>
> I think Lincoln intentionally provoked the South into attacking Ft. Sumter.
Examples please.
> I
> believe the following statement from the U.S. Civil War website sums up the
> situation well:
>
> "Attempts by the Confederate government to settle its differences with the
> Union were spurned by Lincoln, and the Confederacy felt it could no longer
> tolerate the presense of a foreign force in its territory. Believing a conflict
> to be inevitable, Lincoln ingeniously devised a plan that would cause the
> Confederates to fire the first shot and thus, he hoped, inspire the states that
> had not yet seceded to unite in the effort to restore the Union."
> (http://www.us-civilwar.com/sumter.htm)
Like I said before, history by website falls dreadfully short of
a full and objective discussion. Fort Sumter was federal
property. So were several other forts, arsenals, various and
sundry posts and property that were illegally commandeered by
secessionists. If anyone had cause...
Geoff
Cash
> <<< James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, made such an argument.
He
> said that no state could unilaterally leave the Union. Once the people of
a
> state freely entered the Union they made a solemn compact with the people
of
> all the other states, and they could not be released from that compact
except
> by consent of the other parties to the compact. >>>
>
> Other founding fathers did not take this view.
Considering there were 39 who signed the Constitution out of 55 who attended
the Convention, and they were not automatons, there must be a divergence of
opinion on some instances. n.b., Thomas Jefferson was in Paris so his
views, while interesting, don't reflect the views of someone who
participated in drafting or ratifying the Constitution. Most of the 39
signers, though, took the same viewpoint, and Madison was the key Founder,
being the principal author of the Constitution and the one most
knowledgeable about what powers it granted and what powers it did not grant.
Among those who did not sign, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts asserted, "We
never were independent States, were not such now, and never could be."
[Records of Federal Convention, Vol 1, p. 467]
Several delegates of the Massachusetts convention maintained the federal
government under the Constitution would be able to protect the Union from
the acts of "designing and refracting states." [Elliot's Debates, Vol II,
p. 35, Vol IV, pp. 59-60]
In South Carolina, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney urged his colleagues to
"consider all attempts to weaken this Union by maintaining that each state
is separately and individually independent as a species of political
heresy." [Elliot's Debates, Vol IV, p. 301]
In North Carolina, Samuel Johnson said, "The Constitution must be the
supreme law of the land; otherwise it would be in the power of any one state
to counteract the other states and withdraw itself from the Union."
[Elliot's Debates, Vol IV, pp. 187-188]
The framers of both the
> Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were so concerned with
> protecting the sovereignty of the States that it was expressly written
into
> each document. It took the form of Article 2 of the Articles of
Confederation
> which stated,
>
> "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and
every
> power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation
expressly
> delegated to the United States."
>
> In the Constitution of 1789, the protection of the sovereignty of the
states
> was included in the forms of the ninth and tenth amendments which stated,
----------------------
Nothing in the Ninth or Tenth Amendments says the states are sovereign.
Madison explains the sovereignty issue quite clearly. The sovereignty was
split. The federal government is sovereign over the nation while the states
are sovereign in matters that affect only themselves. They are limited in
this area, too, though. They cannot coin money. They cannot grant titles
of nobility. They cannot join a confederation. They cannot pass an ex post
facto law. Article I Section 10 clearly shows the states are not fully
sovereign.
>
> "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;"
-------------
Not the states.
and "The powers
> not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to
> the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."
>
> Please understand that I'm only discussing the question of states rights
and
> secession. I'm not trying to side with the South's position on all
issues. My
> only point here is that it seems to me the South had the right to secede,
even
> if we now view its reasons as untenable.
----------------
They had no right to secede. Article VI, Clause 2 means anything in the
constitution or laws of a state that denies the supremacy of US law within
that state (which is what a secession ordinance does) is unconstitutional,
and therefore legally null and void.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
"Mikegriffith1" <mikegr...@cs.com> wrote
People look at these facts
> and then find it hard to accept the argument that the Civil War wasn't
really
> about slavery or that the Confederate battle flag is not a symbol of
racism,
> even though technically it's no more such a symbol than is the Stars and
> Stripes.
-------------------
Here's a pop quiz:
The victory of the army that fought under which flag meant the end of
slavery in North America?
The victory of the army that fought under which flag would have meant the
perpetuation of slavery on the North American continent?
Regards,
Cash
Cash
I think you misread Stephen A. Douglas very badly. Also, you appear to have
accepted the neoconfederate myth that slavery was on the way out. Nothing
could be further from the truth. Take a look at any labor performed by
anyone. That is something that could be performed by slaves. Slavery was
more than an economic system. It was also a system of social control to
ensure white supremacy. There were no vocal abolitionists in the south.
Anyone who dared vocalize abolitionist sentiments would be forced to leave
the region or would be lynched.
Regards,
Cash
Gregory E. Garland
>
> Yes, the original Articles of Confederation included the phrase
> "permanent" union." However, when the Constitution was being
> drafted, the delegates specifically moved to strike this wording.
You'll have to document this for any to believe it. There's no
mention of any such occurrence in Madison's notes.
>
> The states used their authority to secede from the union formed
> by the Articles of Confederation and then to accede to the new
> union (formed by the Constitution) by ratification.
I don't recall any mention of secession from the AoC in any
of the ratification conventions. This strikes me as yet another
attempt to artfully insert the word 'secede' into early American
history; sort of like attempts to describe the Revolutionary War
as the Colonies 'seceding' from Britain.
> The several states each held their own Conventions where delegates
> selected by the people for this purpose met to debate the benefits
> and risks of the proposed Constitution.
The states did not do so on their 'authority'; they were issued
instructions by Congress (and its agent, the Philadelphia convention)
on how to ratify the Constitution.
Cash
"Chuck Pinnegar" <cpin...@cogeco.ca> wrote
> >None of the states who gave reasons for secession accused the federal
> >government of abusing its trust, or to use Madison's terminology
usurpations
> >or abuses of power. Had their citizens been denied their natural rights
> >they would have a case. This was not what happened, though.
>
> Well, lets look at the Virginia ordinance since that's the one that
> I'm familiar with. I'll use caps to indicate my input.
>
(snip)
> The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the constitution of
> the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the
> twenty-fifth day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand seven
> hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted
> under the said constitution were derived from the people of the United
> States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted
> to their injury and oppression; and the federal government having
> perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of
> Virginia, but to the oppression of the southern slaveholding states:
>
> NOW THE CONVENTION GETS SPECIFIC, REFERRING TO ITS
> INTERPRETATION OF VIRGINIA'S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.
> BUT, THE ORGANIZATION IS CLEARLY LOCKEAN. NOTE
> "PERVERTED" ETC. NOTE: I'M NOT ARGUING WHETHER ANY
> OF THIS IS TRUE OR FALSE JUST WHAT ITS FORM IS.
-----------------
But it's not specific as to what the federal government may have done that
was perverting powers or oppressing the southern slaveholding states.
Lincoln's call for troops to put down a rebellion? The Constitution and the
Militia Act clearly give the federal government and the President the power
to put down rebellions.
(snip)
> >James Madison said, "Applying a like
> >view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact
> >being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure
> >release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be
> >dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or
abuses
> >of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that
there
> >is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to
> >dissolve it at pleasure." [James Madison to Nicholas Trist, 15 Feb 1830]
>
> Ah James, you certainly know how to misquote Locke. But, he finally
> gets down to it when he admits that "The compact can only be dissolved
> by the consent of the other parties [which is Madisonian but not
> Lockean] or by usurpations of power justly having that effect [which
> Locke would recognize.] Doesn't this make my point?
----------------
Madison, and therefore the Constitution, went beyond Locke. I see no
problem with that. There's no law that says every government has to conform
to Locke. Madison made adjustments as he saw necessary and came up with his
own theory on which the Constitution is based.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
> With regard to the argument that slavery was starting to die out,
statistics
> show that the rate of *growth* in the number of slaves was declining. But
> this, again, was a reduction in the GROWTH rate. Thus, the slave
population
> was still growing shortly before the war, although the rate of growth was
> declining.
>
> By inference, one could say that therefore eventually the growth rate
would
> have reached zero and then would have gone into the negative column.
That,
> however, could have taken many years.
>
> On the other hand, would not modernization have eliminated the need for
slavery
> in the near future?
No.
> I've now spent several hours over the last few days reading material on
the
> Civil War. I'm led to ask, Why did Lincoln have to rush to armed conflict
with
> the South? Why couldn't he have tried to live peacefully with the South
and
> then use other means, other pressures, short of war, to encourage the
South
> along the abolitionist path?
------------------------
In your reading, did you happen to read which side fired on Fort Sumter to
start the war? It wasn't Lincoln who rushed into armed conflict. You might
want to skip the neoconfederate websites and concentrate on some real
historians. I suggest _Lincoln and the First Shot_ by Richard N. Current.
Some of these pro-Confederate
> sites make me uncomfortable with certain of their comments about African
> Americans.
--------------------------
Good for you. Have you read the 1948 platform of the States Rights Party?
Regards,
Cash
Maxwelton
> Maxwelton wrote:
>
> > mikegr...@cs.com (Mikegriffith1) wrote in message news:<20030101083731...@mb-cc.news.cs.com>...
> >
> >>I guess the ultimate question is, Did the South have the right to secede?
> >>
> >>On that point, it seems to me the South may have been on valid ground, even
> >>though it wanted to secede in order to preserve the disgusting institution of
> >>slavery.
> >>
> >>In other words, even though the South's reason for wanting to secede may have
> >>been unjust, didn't it still have the right to secede, since it was composed of
> >>sovereign states?
> >>
> >
> > That's right the union of states existed before the constitution was
> > ever ratified. Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation ensure
> > that each state is sovereign.
>
>
> Unless "in a matter expressly delegated to the US". Even in that
> case sovereignty was stricytly limited.
>
>
> >
> >>The states formed the federal government. The states began as soverign
> >>entities. They voluntarily formed a federal union. Therefore, it would seem
> >>to me that if a state or a group of states then decided to leave the union,
> >>that they should be able to do so, even if for an unjust reason.
>
> > If several countries left the European Union should the others have
> > the right to force them back?
>
>
> Grand oversimplification.
No where near as grand as some of the inane analogies I read from
others where there is really no comparison. The ones
I mentioned come a lot closer to the point.
> No war began over the simple matter of
> secession.
This is correct, this is very true.
>
> > It became part of their justification for war.
>
>
> So shooting at a federal fortress meant nothing?
Obviously the goal was simply to force evacuation.
The Confederacy inflicted no casualties on the men
at Ft. Sumter.
If the US chooses to withdraw from the UN and within its
borders UN forces choose not only to stay put on its
bases but to build up forces, I guess the US should just
back down and allow it to happen?
>
>
> >>I wonder what would have happened if Lincoln had just
> >>accepted the Confederacy >and had tried to get along with it
> >>rather than going to war against it.
> >>
> >
> > There is no reason it couldn't have had a peaceful resolve.
>
>
> The South sought redress through arms. And lost.
>
Jackson and Beauregard had more than one chance to take
Washington D.C. and could have easily done it, yet to
Lincoln's surprise they chose not to. Like him there
are many more that still don't understand why.
No one can argue that the south did wrong in defending
itself. The Confederacy did not choose to force its
ideals on the people of the union states, yet union
states did choose to do exactly that to the people
of the Confederacy in the costliest war in US history.
Cash
> Yes, the original Articles of Confederation included the phrase
"permanent"
> union." However, when the Constitution was being drafted, the delegates
> specifically moved to strike this wording.
>
> The states used their authority to secede from the union formed by the
Articles
> of Confederation and then to accede to the new union (formed by the
> Constitution) by ratification. The several states each held their own
> Conventions where delegates selected by the people for this purpose met to
> debate the benefits and risks of the proposed Constitution.
Actually, there was no secession from the AoC. There were no ordinances of
secession. Had the Constitution failed to get the requisite number of
ratifications to take effect, every state who previously ratified would
still have been in the Union under the AoC. What occurred was in fact a
bloodless revolution. Because the AoC proved incompetent to protect the
natural rights of its citizens, the people replaced it with another form of
government designed to protect their natural rights and to secure a "more
Perfect" union.
>
> I think you'd have a better argument if you gratned the right of secession
but
> then made the point that secession was opposed in this particular case in
order
> to free the slaves and to prevent the spread of slave-owning states. I
think
> that would be a better position than trying to deny that no state or even
group
> of states had the right to secede.
------------
They don't.
>
> This, of course, begs the larger question, Did the North really use force
to
> preserve the union mainly in order to free the slaves? Or were other
motives
> more important and crucial?
------------
Prior to 1863 the federal goal was to preserve the Union. After 1863 the
Union forces had two objectives: preserve the Union and destroy slavery.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
History by website is, as Mr. Blankenmeyer has already told you, a very iffy
prospect, especially one like this one that is inaccurate. See some real
history such as _Lincoln and the First Shot_ by Richard N. Current.
Regards,
Cash
Geoff Blankenmeyer
>>So shooting at a federal fortress meant nothing?
>>
>
> Obviously the goal was simply to force evacuation.
> The Confederacy inflicted no casualties on the men
> at Ft. Sumter.
> If the US chooses to withdraw from the UN and within its
> borders UN forces choose not only to stay put on its
> bases but to build up forces, I guess the US should just
> back down and allow it to happen?
Good grief. This piece of sophistry is a rather weak non
sequitur. The UN has offices in the US by invitation. The US
owned Fort Sumter outright, it was federal property, US bought
and paid for. It is as if I had said, "you can not kick me out
of my house that I own" to which you reply, "Yeah, but if you are
renting I can". Point, I (the fed) was not renting.
Owner\Renter. Apples and oranges.
>>The South sought redress through arms. And lost.
>>
>>
> Jackson and Beauregard had more than one chance to take
> Washington D.C. and could have easily done it, yet to
> Lincoln's surprise they chose not to. Like him there
> are many more that still don't understand why.
> No one can argue that the south did wrong in defending
> itself. The Confederacy did not choose to force its
> ideals on the people of the union states, yet union
> states did choose to do exactly that to the people
> of the Confederacy in the costliest war in US history.
What the above has to do with any part of the *conversation* is
beyond me.
GB
Cash
"Geoff Blankenmeyer" <glb...@wi.rr.com> wrote
> > Jackson and Beauregard had more than one chance to take
> > Washington D.C. and could have easily done it, yet to
> > Lincoln's surprise they chose not to. Like him there
> > are many more that still don't understand why.
> > No one can argue that the south did wrong in defending
> > itself. The Confederacy did not choose to force its
> > ideals on the people of the union states, yet union
> > states did choose to do exactly that to the people
> > of the Confederacy in the costliest war in US history.
>
>
> What the above has to do with any part of the *conversation* is
> beyond me.
-------------
Besides which, it's wrong.
Regards,
Cash
Mikegriffith1
a full and objective discussion. Fort Sumter was federal
property. So were several other forts, arsenals, various and
sundry posts and property that were illegally commandeered by
secessionists. If anyone had cause... >>>
No other federal fort in the South was fired upon. They all, except for Ft.
Sumter, changed hands without incident.
The point is that Lincoln took a course that he knew would almost certainly
cause the Confederacy to fire upon the fort. He wasn't satisfied that another
federal fort would fall--he wanted to provoke the South into appearing to fire
the first shot. He was offered a peaceful solution, but refused it. He wanted
to make the South look like the aggressor, when in fact the South did not want
war with the North.
On the other hand, Beauregard did not have to fire upon the fort. I think this
was a big mistake, and a foolish one. It played right into Lincoln's hands.
Mikegriffith1
instructions by Congress (and its agent, the Philadelphia convention)
on how to ratify the Constitution. >>>
So are you saying that no state had the right NOT to join the union in the
first place?
No one who has done any study of the founding documents can deny that the
founders were very concerned about giving too much power to the federal
government. I don't claim to be well-read on the Civil War, but I have read
enough about the formation of the Constitution to know that the last thing most
of them wanted was an all-powerful central government that micromanaged the
affairs of the states of the union. They sought to clearly and explicitly
restrict the power of the federal government and specifically said that all
powers not expressly granted to the federal government were retained by the
states and the citizens of the states.
Mikegriffith1
secession. >>>
True, but they did in effect "leave" the AOC.
<<< Had the Constitution failed to get the requisite number of ratifications to
take effect, every state who previously ratified would
still have been in the Union under the AoC. What occurred was in fact a
bloodless revolution. Because the AoC proved incompetent to protect the
natural rights of its citizens, the people replaced it with another form of
government designed to protect their natural rights and to secure a "more
Perfect" union. >>>
I agree.
Mikegriffith1
reserved the right to secede.
Cash: No, they didn't. They reiterated the natural right of revolution. >>>
New York, in her resolutions of ratification, declared,
"That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever
it shall become necessary to their happiness: that every power, jurisdiction
and right, which is not, by said Constitution, clearly delegated to the
Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof,
remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State
Governments."
Rhode Island, in her ratification, said:
"That the powers of government may be resumed by the people
whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."
Virginia declared, in her ratification:
"That the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the
people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall
be perverted to their injury and oppression."
Other states expressed similar sentiments when they agreed to ratification:
Massachusetts:
"That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly delegated by
the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the several States, to be by them
exercised."
New Hampshire:
"That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and
particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the
several States, to be by them exercised."
Pennsylvania:
"All the rights of sovereignty, which are not by the said Constitution
expressly and plainly vested in the Congress, shall be deemed to remain with,
and shall be exercised by, the several States in the Union, according to their
respective Constitutions."
South Carolina made its reservation very clear:
"That no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a
construction that the States do not retain every power not expressly
relinquished by them, and vested in the General Government of the Union."
Mikegriffith1
voluntarily as well?
---------------
They could, provided they had the consent of the other parties to the compact.
>>>
Nowhere is this stated in the Constitution.
If they had to have the consent of ther other parties of the compact, then they
had surrendered control over their own destiny and surrendered their ability to
chart their own course even if they felt the need to do so. No state believed
it was doing this in ratifying the Constitution.
Where in the founding documents is there evidence to support the view that a
state would be unable to leave the union, even if it felt it needed to do so,
unless all the other parties of the union agreed? As I noted in a previous
message, several states made it clear they were reserving their rights in the
event the federal government became destructive to their interests. Several
states almost certainly would not have ratified the Constitution if the 9th and
10th Amendments hadn't been included, especially the 10th.
Mikegriffith1
Cash: No, he didn't. >>>
In his draft of the Declaration, Jefferson wrote:
". . . finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and
independent states, and that as free and independent states they shall
hereafter have the power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances,
establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent
states may of right do."
Jefferson in fact was the leader of the states rights camp among the founders,
while Hamilton was the leader of those who favored a more powerful central
government.
In the first Kentucky Resolution, Jefferson said the following:
"That the several States comprising the United States of America, are not
united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government,
but that by compact under the style and title of a constitution for the United
States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government, for
special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers,
reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self
government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated
powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this
compact each State acceded, as a State, and is an integral party; that this
government created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge
of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since this would have made its
discretion and not the Constitution the measure of its powers; but that as in
all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has
an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and
measure of redress."
So clearly Jefferson viewed the states as sovereign entities and as governments
that were not granting the federal government cart blanche powers.
Mikegriffith1
slavery in North America?
The victory of the army that fought under which flag would have meant the
perpetuation of slavery on the North American continent?
Regards, Cash >>>
Yes, and that's a major problem in trying to separate the Confederate cause
from slavery. Certainly in the short term anyway slavery would have continued
if the South had won.
However, I don't think a victorious South would have imposed slavery on a
defeated North. But slavery undoubtedly would have continued for a number of
years in the South if the South had won. And, slavery may have been spread to
western states if the South had won.
Mikegriffith1
on the way out. >>>
No, based on what I've read so far, I don't think one can say that slavery was
on the way out in the South. One can perhaps say it was on the way out in the
sense that modernization of farming methods was not too far away. But I don't
think one can say the South had any immediate plans of abolishing slavery. I
haven't seen any evidence of that at all.
Gregory E. Garland
>
> <<< The states did not do so on their 'authority'; they were issued
> instructions by Congress (and its agent, the Philadelphia convention)
> on how to ratify the Constitution. >>>
>
> So are you saying that no state had the right NOT to join the union
> in the first place?
Nope, they definitely had the choice twice in the formative
years of the United States: Once while ratifying the AoC and
once while ratifying the Constitution.
>
> No one who has done any study of the founding documents can deny
> that the founders were very concerned about giving too much power
> to the federal government. I don't claim to be well-read on the
> Civil War
Don't you think it's past time for you to give up this pretense?
Do you think that noone here actually doesn't know you are here
to shill for the Lost Cause?
>, but I have read enough about the formation of the Constitution
> to know that the last thing most of them wanted was an all-powerful
> central government that micromanaged the affairs of the states of
> the union. They sought to clearly and explicitly restrict the
> power of the federal government
They clearly thought to create a nation with divided sovereignty
between the states and the federal government.
> and specifically said that all powers not expressly granted to
> the federal government were retained by the states and the
> citizens of the states.
Unlike your claim of the founders deliberately eliminating a
clause in the Constitution that re-stated the AoC provision of
the Union being perpetual, the founders did specifically and
deliberately eliminate any language suggesting that only the
federal government only had those powers specifically and expressly
denoted, on the quite logical grounds that it would make the
Constitution unworkable.
Cash
"Mikegriffith1" <mikegr...@cs.com> wrote
>
> No other federal fort in the South was fired upon. They all, except for
Ft.
> Sumter, changed hands without incident.
------------------
Fort Monroe in Virginia never changed hands. Neither did Fort Pickens in
Florida. A group of secessionists tried to take Fort Barrancas on January
8, 1861 but were repelled. Soon after that the federal commander at that
fort, Lt Slemmer, spiked the guns and took his troops to Fort Pickens.
>
> The point is that Lincoln took a course that he knew would almost
certainly
> cause the Confederacy to fire upon the fort. He wasn't satisfied that
another
> federal fort would fall--he wanted to provoke the South into appearing to
fire
> the first shot. He was offered a peaceful solution, but refused it. He
wanted
> to make the South look like the aggressor, when in fact the South did not
want
> war with the North.
-----------------
This is not in accordance with the historical evidence and is in fact
nothing more than postwar propaganda. On April 10, Jefferson Davis received
a telegram from Louis T. Wigfall, who was in Charleston, saying, "All here
is in ready on our side. Our delay therefore is to his [Lincoln's]
advantage, and our disadvantage. Let us take Fort Sumter before we have to
fight the fleet and the fort. General Beuregard will not act without your
order. Let me suggest to you to send the order to him to begin the attack
as soon as he is ready. Virginia is excited by our preparations, and a bold
stroke on our side will complete her purposes. Policy and prudence are
urgent upon us to begin at once."
Jefferson Davis wanted Virginia and the rest of the border states to come
over to his side, and starting the war was the only way to do it. The
Mobile, Alabama _Mercury_ printed an editorial in which it said of the Fort
Sumter situation, "The country is sinking into a fatal apathy, and the
spirit and even the patriotism of the people is oozing out under this
do-nothing policy. If something is not done pretty soon, decisive, either
evacuation or expulsion, the whole country will become so disgusted with the
sham of southern independence that the first chance the people get at a
popular election they will turn the whole movement topsy-turvy so bad that
it never on earth can be righted again." Davis was running out of time
because he needed something to bring the slave states, including the border
states, together. "A clash at Sumter would bring Virginia over to the
Confederacy at once; this was an axiom of Southern thinking. With Virginia
would come Maryland and other slave states, even Delaware. There would then
be, most likely, fifteen states in the Confederacy as compared with eighteen
in the Union. War would not only enlarge but it would also inspirit and
solidify the Confederacy. So a number of Southerners believed. 'There is
another way of avoiding the calamity of reconstruction and that is war,' an
Alabaman said. 'Now pardon me for suggesting that South Carolina has the
power of putting us beyond the reach of reconstruction by taking Fort Sumter
at any cost.' " [Richard N. Current, _Lincoln and the First Shot,_ p. 135]
Regards,
Cash
Cash
> <<< At least two of the states that ratified the Constitution expressly
> reserved the right to secede.
>
> Cash: No, they didn't. They reiterated the natural right of revolution.
>>>
>
> New York, in her resolutions of ratification, declared,
>
> "That the powers of government may be resumed by the people,
whensoever
> it shall become necessary to their happiness: that every power,
jurisdiction
> and right, which is not, by said Constitution, clearly delegated to the
> Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government
thereof,
> remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State
> Governments."
This is the natural right to revolution, not secession.
>
> Rhode Island, in her ratification, said:
>
> "That the powers of government may be resumed by the people
> whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."
--------------------------
So is this.
>
> Virginia declared, in her ratification:
>
> "That the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived
from the
> people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same
shall
> be perverted to their injury and oppression."
---------------------------
Ditto for this one. The natural right to revolution, not secession.
>
> Other states expressed similar sentiments when they agreed to
ratification:
>
> Massachusetts:
>
> "That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly
delegated by
> the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the several States, to be by
them
> exercised."
-----------------------------
Does not deal with secession.
>
> New Hampshire:
>
> "That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and
> particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the
> several States, to be by them exercised."
-----------------------------
Neither does this one.
>
> Pennsylvania:
>
> "All the rights of sovereignty, which are not by the said
Constitution
> expressly and plainly vested in the Congress, shall be deemed to remain
with,
> and shall be exercised by, the several States in the Union, according to
their
> respective Constitutions."
----------------------------
Nor this one.
>
> South Carolina made its reservation very clear:
>
> "That no section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a
> construction that the States do not retain every power not expressly
> relinquished by them, and vested in the General Government of the Union."
-----------------------------
Still no secession.
Article VI, Clause 2 makes anything in the constitution or laws of any state
that denies the supremacy of US law within that state (such as an ordinance
of secession) null and void.
Regards,
Cash
Gregory E. Garland
>
> <<< At least two of the states that ratified the Constitution expressly
> reserved the right to secede.
>
>
Not one of the various addendums the state conventions you list
here mentions any expressly reserved right for individual state
secession. In point of fact none of these statements that they
felt like 'attaching' to their ratification have any legal force
whatsoever, and in general merely state the obvious fact that
if the people of the United States want to reform their government
again they have the right to do so. No single state power to leave
the Union at will is expressed, implied, or even remotely hinted at
in any of these passages.
Cash
> <<< If states joined the Union voluntarily, why couldn't they leave it
> voluntarily as well?
> ---------------
> They could, provided they had the consent of the other parties to the
compact.
> >>>
>
> Nowhere is this stated in the Constitution.
>
> If they had to have the consent of ther other parties of the compact, then
they
> had surrendered control over their own destiny and surrendered their
ability to
> chart their own course even if they felt the need to do so. No state
believed
> it was doing this in ratifying the Constitution.
As a matter of fact, they did. The whole reason for moving from the AoC to
the Constitution was to make the chance of disunion as remote as possible.
The first 20 of the Federalist Papers discuss the reason why Union is
important and why the AoC were insufficient to preserve the Union, making it
necessary to form a new government.
>
> Where in the founding documents is there evidence to support the view that
a
> state would be unable to leave the union, even if it felt it needed to do
so,
> unless all the other parties of the union agreed?
------------------------
This is contract law. See James Madison's writings.
As I noted in a previous
> message, several states made it clear they were reserving their rights in
the
> event the federal government became destructive to their interests.
Several
> states almost certainly would not have ratified the Constitution if the
9th and
> 10th Amendments hadn't been included, especially the 10th.
-------------------
As I showed previously, they would and they did. Look at the dates of
ratification and the dates the Bill of Rights, including the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments, were passed by Congress and then ratified.
Regards,
Cash
ECalistri
>No other federal fort in the South was fired upon. They all, except for Ft.
>Sumter, changed hands without incident.
So groups of armed men confiscating property, and seizing assets is "without
incident'? Interesting bit of sophistry, that. I believe theft is the more
common term, at least outside the realm of neo-confederate biolerplate. What
do your "sources" call sending these seized arms up to Missouri to pry that
state out the Union? A Valentine Card?
>The point is that Lincoln took a course that he knew would almost certainly
>cause the Confederacy to fire upon the fort.
Ahh, yes, biting on the "evil mind controlling Abe Lincoln made us fire the
first shot" theorem. This of course requires you to ignore the previous firing
on the Star of the West, unless you wish to now drag out the "evil mind
controlling James Buchanon made us fire the first shot" theorem.
The whole "legality" of secession is post bellum sophistry, pure and simple.
Legal issues are settled in courts of law. By bringing in the guns and opening
fire the confederates themselves spoke loudly and clearly of their position on
the legality of the issue.
> He wasn't satisfied that
>another
>federal fort would fall--he wanted to provoke the South into appearing to
>fire
>the first shot. He was offered a peaceful solution, but refused it. He
>wanted
>to make the South look like the aggressor, when in fact the South did not
>want
>war with the North.
Opening fire is a strange way to avoid a war. Shipping arms to Missouri in an
effort to pry that state out of the Union, against the will of its people, is a
strange sort of "peaceful solution." Invading Kentucky and New Mexico wasn't
aggression, Old Abe just shouldn't have left such tempting targets dangling
right out there where we could just grab 'em.
Northerners may have a gotten a different impression, than that conveyed
nowadays by lost causers such as yourself, when CSA Secretary of War Walker
claimed the brave new flag would fly not just over Washington but perhaps over
Fanueil Hall in Boston.
But the real question is: Why do you think the President has the whole
authority to enforce an ordnance of secession? Why not Congress? Why do you
feel the judiciary is excluded from the process? What is your constitutional
basis for stating that Lincoln had the power to negotiate a peaceful solution
with seceding states, without any necessary approval or even input from
congress? As Fort Sumter, and the other federal installations were created
through legislation passed by the congress, on what basis do you believe the
President can circumvent or overturn, unilaterally, that legislation?
Weak as the "secession was legal" argument is, and it is exceedingly weak, it
is the easier part of the case. Once one has made their "States can leave at
any time for any reason, or for no reason, and no one can stop them or even
challenge them, and also they may take whatever federal property they can grab
on their out way the door, and no one can challenge that either" argument, they
are still left with having to grant, to the President, far greater powers than
can be possibly gleaned from any reading of the Constitution.
>On the other hand, Beauregard did not have to fire upon the fort. I think
>this
>was a big mistake, and a foolish one. It played right into Lincoln's hands.
Beauregard was ordered, by Jefferson Davis to fire the first shot, he didn't
act on his own. The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the official policy of the
Montgomery Government. And as you say, a foolish one.
Eric
Cash
> <<< MTG: Thomas Jefferson certainly viewed the states as sovereign
entities.
>
> Cash: No, he didn't. >>>
>
> In his draft of the Declaration, Jefferson wrote:
>
> ". . . finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free
and
> independent states, and that as free and independent states they shall
> hereafter have the power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances,
> establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent
> states may of right do."
I suggest you compare the date of the Declaration of Independence with the
date on the Constitution. You may also want to check out to see how much
power the individual states had to do the things sovereign states do under
the AoC as well as under the Constitution. If you meant he considered them
sovereign entities only prior to their formal incorporation into the United
States of America, then I misunderstood you.
-------------------------
That's a misreading of the Kentucky Resolutions. The states are united
under the Constitution, they delegated the general government certain powers
(sovereignty). The residual power (sovereignty) was left to the states. In
other words, sovereignty was split. This doesn't mean the States are
sovereign entities outside the general government. It means they are
sovereign within their own borders for only those issues that affect only
them, excepting powers prohibited them by the Constitution (e.g., Article
I, Section 10). He then declares the general government cannot act outside
the Constitution, which is true.
Regards,
Cash
Cash
> <<< The victory of the army that fought under which flag meant the end of
> slavery in North America?
>
> The victory of the army that fought under which flag would have meant the
> perpetuation of slavery on the North American continent?
>
> Regards, Cash >>>
>
> Yes, and that's a major problem in trying to separate the Confederate
cause
> from slavery. Certainly in the short term anyway slavery would have
continued
> if the South had won.
>
> However, I don't think a victorious South would have imposed slavery on a
> defeated North. But slavery undoubtedly would have continued for a number
of
> years in the South if the South had won. And, slavery may have been
spread to
> western states if the South had won.
And it would have spread south as well:
Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard
to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . .
I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want
them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery."
[Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]
Regards,
Cash
Cash
> <<< Also, you appear to have accepted the neoconfederate myth that slavery
was
> on the way out. >>>
>
> No, based on what I've read so far, I don't think one can say that slavery
was
> on the way out in the South. One can perhaps say it was on the way out in
the
> sense that modernization of farming methods was not too far away. But I
don't
> think one can say the South had any immediate plans of abolishing slavery.
I
> haven't seen any evidence of that at all.
No, the myth is exactly what you said, that technological advances would
have meant the end of slavery. That's not true. Slavery was a system of
social and racial control as well as economics, plus a slave could perform
any type of labor.
Regards,
Cash