Confiscation & Dr. Pitcavage (Was Reconstruction)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

RStacy2229

unread,
Aug 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/1/96
to

In article <4qs371$4...@portal.gmu.edu>, mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
(Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>Why should blacks leave the south, where they had lived for
>generations? Why shouldn't ex-slaveowners have left the South?

Well, it would seem to me that blacks DID show a great willingness to
leave those places "they had lived for generations," as you and others
have repeatedly pointed out. They followed and/or joined Union armies,
were slaughtered at Fort Pillow and the Crater, were drowned in Ebenezer
Creek, et cetera. Slaves had long been seeking to escape the places "they
had lived for generations," and prior to the war, the North had encouraged
such escapes, even celebrating such efforts in best-selling books and
sold-out plays. Having conquered and devastated Dixie, however, the North
suddenly had a change of heart and decided that it would be nice if the
newly-minted citizens were to stay in the South and vote to keep the
Republican Party in permanent control of the now all-powerful federal
government. My, but what a startling reversal of opinions was thereby
wrought!
As for why Southerners didn't leave the South, many of them already had
left not only their beloved homelands, but had indeed left this vail of
tears altogether. Some thousands of them had exited by way of Cemetery
Hill and Little Round Top. Others exited via Elmira and other such death
factories. The survivors, however, were afraid to leave the South for fear
that they might wind up in Columbus, Ohio, fall into absurdist Yankee
doctrines and be mistaken for lunatics.

>Certainly in a
>moral sense they had no right to lands they were able to purchase only
>because
>of wealth gained by owning human beings.>
And today's bankers have no right to the property they acquire by
exploiting the public with 21 percent APR credit cards. Seize the Bel-Air
mansions owned by those who purvey smut and violence at $5.50 a pop to the
movie-going public. Confiscate the Florida condo that the Doles purchased
with the money they got by pimping for corporate interests in Washington.
More to the point, by dwelling only on the inflammatory matter of slavery,
we overlook the fact that many foreigners and others had invested money
earned otherwise in Southern landholding. Some of it was, in fact, Yankee
money. Never mind that many planters went belly-up before or during the
war through mismanagement, while others by their own wise stewardship of
land, finances and personnel had flourished. Many Southerners had owned
slaves, but not all had become great landholders thereby. So it is only
those who prospered by their slaveholding (and had not had the good sense
to sell out before the war) who would be punished, rather than all
slaveholders. Dr. Pitcavage's conception of "moral sense" is certainly a
curious one.

>In a legal sense, those slaveowners>
>who had rebelled against the federal government had no right to their
>property (or their lives);
They had not rebelled against the federal government, but had left it,
much as their forefathers had joined the government they had created in
the first place. Secession was not rebellion, nor was it treason, nor if
Minnesota or Maine voted to secede tomorrow would it be any such thing.
Dr. Pitcavage here perpetuates one of the great myths of American history.
Lincoln had no more right to force Virginia into the Union than he had a
right to force Cuba into the Union. To say otherwise is to contradict
every principle upon which this nation was established.

>they had what they had because of the grace of that
>government.>

Finally, Dr. Pitcavage has gotten something right. By dint of Northern
victory in the War Between the States, the conquered Confederates -- and,
little knowing it, their erstwhile Union foes -- possessed nothing except
by the grace of whatever faction controlled Washington, D.C. And it is
still true today, for under the principles by which the North claimed
victory in 1865 there is no property, no right, no tiny corner of human
action which could not be obliterated tomorrow by fiat of the federal
government. The Bill of Rights, thanks to that war, is no longer worth the
paper it was written on, for Congress, the Supreme Court and the executive
can twist the law to say whatever yesterday's Gallup Poll wants it to say.
So when someone tells you that the Confederate cause was just slavery and
oppression, pray that the Gallup Poll remains in your favor.

As for confiscation, surely that would have satisfied neither Dr.
Pitcavage nor his idol, Thad Stevens. Slavery was, after all, the Original
Sin, never mind all that Garden-of-Eden stuff about a snake and an apple.
And I think Dr. Pitcavage would scarcely have been satisfied if Congress
in 1865 had declared that every man who had ever owned a slave, and every
member of every slaveholding family -- having once owned even a single
maid or coachman -- were to be marched to Pennsylvania and pitchforked,
one by one, into the furnace at Mr. Stevens' Caledonia ironworks. Why,
perhaps if they had charged a nickel a head to admit spectators to this
ongoing Roman extravaganza, they could have even paid off the Union war
debt and had plenty left over to buy enough mules to go with all those
40-acre plots for the newly-minted Republican majority in Dixie.

Robert Stacy McCain

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Aug 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/1/96
to

In article <4tpbki$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,


RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4qs371$4...@portal.gmu.edu>, mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>(Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>Why should blacks leave the south, where they had lived for
>>generations? Why shouldn't ex-slaveowners have left the South?
>
>Well, it would seem to me that blacks DID show a great willingness to
>leave those places "they had lived for generations," as you and others
>have repeatedly pointed out. They followed and/or joined Union armies,
>were slaughtered at Fort Pillow and the Crater, were drowned in Ebenezer
>Creek, et cetera. Slaves had long been seeking to escape the places "they
>had lived for generations," and prior to the war, the North had encouraged
>such escapes, even celebrating such efforts in best-selling books and
>sold-out plays.

Before the Civil War, slaves escaped northwards and out of the country because
that was what they considered their best hope for freedom. During the Civil
War, many slaves joined the Union Army, but you will notice they didn't exactly
leave the South, but instead fought for the freedom of their wives, mothers,
fathers, daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, and more distant kin.

<deletia>


>>Certainly in a
>>moral sense they had no right to lands they were able to purchase only
>>because
>>of wealth gained by owning human beings.>

>And today's bankers have no right to the property they acquire by
>exploiting the public with 21 percent APR credit cards.

It is remarkable that you would try to equate the wrongs of slavery with the
wrongs of high interest rates.

Seize the Bel-Air
>mansions owned by those who purvey smut and violence at $5.50 a pop to the
>movie-going public. Confiscate the Florida condo that the Doles purchased
>with the money they got by pimping for corporate interests in Washington.
>More to the point, by dwelling only on the inflammatory matter of slavery,
>we overlook the fact that many foreigners and others had invested money
>earned otherwise in Southern landholding. Some of it was, in fact, Yankee
>money. Never mind that many planters went belly-up before or during the
>war through mismanagement, while others by their own wise stewardship of
>land, finances and personnel had flourished. Many Southerners had owned
>slaves, but not all had become great landholders thereby. So it is only
>those who prospered by their slaveholding (and had not had the good sense
>to sell out before the war) who would be punished, rather than all
>slaveholders. Dr. Pitcavage's conception of "moral sense" is certainly a
>curious one.

I'll ignore your equally peculiar comparisons of pornography dealing and
slavery, etc. As for your later point, one can only confiscate property where
there -is- property. It is a practical, rather than a moral point. I do not
recall whether or not you were around for the lengthy discussion of land
confiscation a while back. When I proposed my own "what if I had a time
machine and could go back and become absolute ruler" type of plan for
confiscation, I discussed confiscating half the land of non-Unionist
slaveholders who possessed over X acres of land. My point in offering such a
plan was to recognize that someone who owned just one or two slaves quite
possibly did not have enough land to have some confiscated and still be able to
support a family; my goal was to provide Southern land for the freemen while
not completely divesting anyone of all their property, even if would have been
justice to see it done in some cases.

>
>>In a legal sense, those slaveowners>
>>who had rebelled against the federal government had no right to their
>>property (or their lives);

>They had not rebelled against the federal government, but had left it,
>much as their forefathers had joined the government they had created in
>the first place. Secession was not rebellion, nor was it treason, nor if
>Minnesota or Maine voted to secede tomorrow would it be any such thing.

Their forefathers created a government by rebellion. The South tried to do so
and failed. Secession was merely a political means; when that seemed to fail,
they pursued their goal by what Clausewitz might call "other means."

>Dr. Pitcavage here perpetuates one of the great myths of American history.
>Lincoln had no more right to force Virginia into the Union than he had a
>right to force Cuba into the Union. To say otherwise is to contradict
>every principle upon which this nation was established.

Virginia was already in the Union; Lincoln did not have to lift a finger to put
it there. The problem was that Rebels in the state wanted to take it out of
the Union. Here Lincoln objected.


<deletia>

gary charbonneau

unread,
Aug 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/1/96
to

In article <4tpbki$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:

>They had not rebelled against the federal government, but had left it,
>much as their forefathers had joined the government they had created in
>the first place. Secession was not rebellion, nor was it treason, nor if
>Minnesota or Maine voted to secede tomorrow would it be any such thing.
>Dr. Pitcavage here perpetuates one of the great myths of American history.
>Lincoln had no more right to force Virginia into the Union

Lincoln did not force Virginia into the Union. Virginia voluntarily
joined the Union in 1776, and voluntarily reaffirmed its membership
in the Union in 1789. But whether, having voluntarily entered the Union,
Virginia automatically retained the right to leave it voluntarily and
unilaterally, without the consent of the other states, is quite a different
question.

>than he had a right to force Cuba into the Union.

The platform of the Breckinridge wing of the Democratic Party contained
the following plank:

"4. That the Democratic Party are in favor of the acquisition of the
island of Cuba on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just
to Spain at the earliest practicable moment."

The platform of the Douglas Democrats contained the same plank, although
omitting the phrase, "at the earliest practicable moment."

Although the terms of acquisition were to be just to Spain, there was no
indication that they had to be just to Cuba. If Cuba didn't want to be
part of the Union, that was just too bad. Running on this platform,
Breckinridge carried nine of the eleven states that would eventually
form the Confederacy.

Lincoln was not interested in forcing Cuba into the Union. He was, in
fact, quite opposed to the idea. The notion of many Southerners that one of
the main tasks of the federal government was to acquire more territory
suitable for slavery (to preserve the sectional political balance and
to prop up the market value of slaves) was one of the ingredients
of antebellum sectional controversy. In January, 1861, Lincoln declared, "If
we surrender [i.e., if the Republicans were to compromise their
principles on the slavery issue], it is the end of us, and of the
government. They will repeat the experiment on us _ad libitum_. A year
will not pass, till we shall have to take Cuba as a condition upon which
they will stay in the Union."

- Gary Charbonneau

Dave Smith

unread,
Aug 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/1/96
to

rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:

>In article <4qs371$4...@portal.gmu.edu>, mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>(Mark T Pitcavage) writes:

>>Why should blacks leave the south, where they had lived for
>>generations? Why shouldn't ex-slaveowners have left the South?

>Well, it would seem to me that blacks DID show a great willingness to
>leave those places "they had lived for generations," as you and others
>have repeatedly pointed out. They followed and/or joined Union armies,
>were slaughtered at Fort Pillow and the Crater, were drowned in Ebenezer
>Creek, et cetera.

In a remarkable sentence, you conveniently forget the
sacrifices and untold valor shown by African Americans who served
in the Union armies. The statement does little to honor
Southern culture; I just wish you could see that.

>Slaves had long been seeking to escape the places "they
>had lived for generations," and prior to the war, the North had encouraged
>such escapes, even celebrating such efforts in best-selling books and
>sold-out plays. Having conquered and devastated Dixie, however, the North
>suddenly had a change of heart and decided that it would be nice if the
>newly-minted citizens were to stay in the South and vote to keep the
>Republican Party in permanent control of the now all-powerful federal
>government. My, but what a startling reversal of opinions was thereby
>wrought!

Speaking for the Cincinnati, Ohio area, I cannot figure
out where they (African Americans) all came from if the North had
such a determined mind to keep them down South.

>As for why Southerners didn't leave the South, many of them already had
>left not only their beloved homelands, but had indeed left this vail of
>tears altogether. Some thousands of them had exited by way of Cemetery
>Hill and Little Round Top.

And, I guess, to use you previous analogy, were slaughtered
by their commanders at places like Franklin and Nashville.

> Others exited via Elmira and other such death
>factories.

Which, of course, did not exist in the South . . . were
they prison camps, or death factories?

> The survivors, however, were afraid to leave the South for fear
>that they might wind up in Columbus, Ohio, fall into absurdist Yankee
>doctrines and be mistaken for lunatics.

Tis a good thing the Internet is not geographically
specific.

snips; enough of this stuff

Dave

--------------------------------------------------
Dave Smith Always Store Beer in a Dark Place
Villa Hills, Ky -- Lazarus Long
url http://users.aol.com/dmsmith001/
url http://users.aol.com/CintiCWRT/
--------------------------------------------------


RStacy2229

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:

>When I proposed my own "what if I had a time
>machine and could go back and become absolute ruler"

You dwell entirely too much on such scenarios, betraying your obvious
megalomaniacal traits. I suppose your time machine also transports you
forward from time to time? Careful, Mark: That's how Newt started, you
know. Get a Ph.D. in history, then start fantasizing about seizing
absolute power.

Robert Stacy McCain

RStacy2229

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:

> Secession was merely a political means; when that seemed to fail,
>they pursued their goal by what Clausewitz might call "other means."

Who pursued that goal? All the South asked was to be let alone.

RStacy2229

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4tqut6$j...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, dmsmi...@aol.com (Dave
Smith) writes:

> Speaking for the Cincinnati, Ohio area, I cannot figure
>out where they (African Americans) all came from if the North had
>such a determined mind to keep them down South.

What percentage of the population of Ohio was black in 1900?

Today, the number is 10 percent, one of the highest percentages of
African-Americans in any Northern state. Georgia is 27 percent black;
Mississippi 35 percent; South Carolina 31 percent; Alabama 26 percent. In
fact, roughly half the African-American population of the United States
resides in the 13 states represented by stars on the Saint Andrew's Cross.
Thus, the concentration of black citizens is, on average, roughly three
times as high in Dixie as it is in the rest of the nation. That you,
living in Cincinnati, should have a contrary notion is easy enough to
explain: In the South, black citizens are part of almost every community,
while in the North, they are largely crowded into urban ghettos in the
major cities. Check some demographic analysis of Ohio from the 1990
census, Dave, if you doubt this. Or save yourself the time and just drive
up to some of your all-white Ohio towns like Galion.

As I have said elsewhere, the North's regional approach to racial
apartheid has been quite successful, especially in respect to the
Republican Party's declared 1860 campaign goal of making the West "the
land for the white man." Check the modern-day percentages of black
population in Idaho, Montana, Utah and Colorado if you doubt this
assertion. I always laugh at those who point that today's Republicans are
playing racial politics, as if the GOP wasn't a racist operation from Day
One.

RSMc

Andrew James Llwellyn Cary

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

RStacy2229 wrote:

<<Lots of stuff. 7 count'em 7, often scurillous messages >>
He said:
(1) You disagree with me. You have a 'North Good'/'South Bad' mentality.
(2) You disagree with me. You are a happy little bolsevik.
(3) You disagree with me. You are a meglomaniac.
(4) The north wanted to punish the south by reallocating private lands to the freedman. The north didn't
want freedmen in the north or the west- evidence the draft riots. A real argument.
(5) The "Evil North" wouldn't leave the peace loving south alone.
(6) The south had every right to secede. Lincoln** had no right to make them stay in the union (The
gentlemen's club argument follows)
(7) The "Evil North" wrote the history justifying it's means by the ends acheived. The south was raped.

I'm going to ignore 1,2,and 3. their arguments stand on their own merit.

(4) You bet the north felt vindictive and wanted to punish the south. Andrew Johnson (by your lights a
renegade southerner) did his damnedest to do it too. No apologies from me, I wasn't there. The northern
laborers did not want cheap freedmen taking there jobs from them. The causes of the NY draft riots are not
so cut and dried as you imply. Racism had a lot to do with it, economics had a lot to do with it, politics
had more to do with it.

(5) Hmmm. I seem to remember something about bloody Kansas... The slave states had been threatening to
secede for many years before they actually did, by the time they did plenty of people ON BOTH SIDES were
spoiling for a fight. The Abolitionists/North had John Brown and Sumner. The States Rights/Southerners had
Quantrill, Edward Ruffin and Prestin Brooks. Elements of both sides were spoiling for a fight.

For a 'country' that wanted to be left alone, the confederacy wasted no time in trying to annex New Mexico
and Arizona for new slave states. not to mention seizing federal property (not state owned property)
without compensation.

(6) The constitution is not a gentlemans club. It is a binding and organic contract. The authors felt that
and that is why no provision for sucession is provided. It wasn't forgotten. It is/was a one way contract.

(7) Actually one of the neat things about the ACW is the overwhealming amount of information written in
support of both sides of the conflict. The southern apologists (like Maury) are articulate and thourogh.


Andrew J. L. Cary | I Reckon that the Opinions
Senior Curmudgeon | expressed here DO represent
Cary Consulting Services, Newark, CA | those of the management of
ajl...@ix.netcom.com | Cary Consulting Services

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4ts268$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>It is remarkable that you would try to equate the wrongs of slavery with
>the
>>wrongs of high interest rates.
>
>SLAVERY: A Southern thing.
>HIGH INTEREST: A Yankee thing.
>
>Pitcavage again shows his mindlock assumption, "North, good; South, bad,"
>and loses sight of the original argument in pursuing his hate campaign,
>which without exception turns any discussion of anything -- from a flank
>attack to a flapjack -- into a discussion of slavery: "How dare they eat
>those flapjacks, cooked by the hands of oppressed millions!"
>
>The question was, whether Southerners who had lost their nation, their
>sons, their property and their politicial rights should be subjected to
>further depredations at the hands of those who perpetrated those wrongs,
>by having the Yankees seize their lands as well. Let us see how Pitcavage
>can justify that.

First of all, let me reiterate that your placing "slavery" and "high
interest rates" as equal wrongs (and mistakenly assuming one was "yankee") is
beyond bizarre; it is unfathomable.

Secondly, why not rephrase what "the question was," to: whether Southerners
who rebelled against the government should be allowed to keep the property they
owned by virtue of keeping human chattel? You can even eliminate slavery from
the equation; Southerners who rebelled against the government lost rights to
their property. Had the experience of the Loyalists been repeated, they could
not have complained.

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4ts274$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>> As for your later point, one can only confiscate property where
>>there -is- property. It is a practical, rather than a moral point.
>
>Well, get on one side of the argument or the other, Mark, although you
>lose either way. When inciting the mob to villainy, you claim a moral
>justification; in its actual application, however, you are willing to be
>practical. What a happy little Bolshevik you are -- Trotsky had the same
>tendency, and look how his skill was repaid!

Alas, in your rush to label me a Bolshevik you forgot to address my arguments.

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4ts2a4$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>> Secession was merely a political means; when that seemed to fail,
>>they pursued their goal by what Clausewitz might call "other means."
>
>Who pursued that goal? All the South asked was to be let alone.

The problem was that they asked it with cannonballs.

Tennessee Reb

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

On Aug 02, 1996 13:37:19 in article <Re: Confiscation & Dr. Pitcavage (Was
Reconstruction)>, 'char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)'
wrote:


>The latter having made the compact way do what they will
>with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till

>released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the powers
>created....

Please note the last portion of this sentence. Just who, pray tell
is qualified to judge what constitutes "intolerable abuse of the
powers"? Is it the "abuser" or the "abusee"? The South thought
such abuse present, and determined to leave. That the Unionists
declared such "abuse" non-existent is hardly surprising.

>"It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down
>by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced
>by one who understands the subject.

>"James Madison"

I believe Mr. Madison objected to the possibility of petty differences
threatening the nation as a whole. In 1860, the differences between
the sections were hardly petty.

>Time to remove Madison from the pantheon and place his name on the
>list of scalawags. His understanding of the Constitution was hopelessly
>biased by the fact of his having helped to write it.

Gary, you should avoid this sort of sarcasm. It casts your position in
a bad light. And, besides, you're not very good at it.

Have a Nice Day,

T. Reb

RStacy2229

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>It is remarkable that you would try to equate the wrongs of slavery with
the
>wrongs of high interest rates.

SLAVERY: A Southern thing.

RStacy2229

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:

> As for your later point, one can only confiscate property where
>there -is- property. It is a practical, rather than a moral point.

Well, get on one side of the argument or the other, Mark, although you

System Janitor

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

"James F. Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu> writes:
>OK, this is a reasonable point of view to take, but it opens up a whole
>can of worms that I am not sure you want to eat. For one thing, what was
>the "intolerable abuse of powers" that existed? I have asked this
>question about a zillion times, and I have yet to get any kind of rational
>answer. As of December 19, 1860, what abuse of powers had taken place
>that justified South Carolina's secession?

It says right in South Carolina's ``Declaration of the Immediate
Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina
from the Federal Union'' what they are.

The North was not honoring the fourth article of the Constitution,
which South Carolina claimed was ``so material to the compact [Consti-
tution], that without it that compact would not have been made.''
For years factions from the North actively encouraged servile insurrection
in the South. Southerners hate waking up dead, having had their
throats slit in the night. Southerners put up with this activity
for 25 years, and when the agitators secured to their ``aid the
power of the common Government'', South Carolina quit consenting
to be governed by the common Government. The declaration goes on
to say:

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the
Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from
the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made
sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall
cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the
equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will
no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and
the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

-Mike

gary charbonneau

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4tta1g$5...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>,

Tennessee Reb <tennes...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
>On Aug 02, 1996 13:37:19 in article <Re: Confiscation & Dr. Pitcavage (Was
>Reconstruction)>, 'char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)'
>wrote:
>
>
>>The latter having made the compact way do what they will
>>with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till
>>released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the powers
>>created....
>
>Please note the last portion of this sentence. Just who, pray tell
>is qualified to judge what constitutes "intolerable abuse of the
>powers"? Is it the "abuser" or the "abusee"?

That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? When is revolution legitimate?
Do you believe that the opinion of the revolutionaries must always
carry the day, solely because they are the revolutionaries?

>The South thought such abuse present, and determined to leave.
>That the Unionists declared such "abuse" non-existent is hardly surprising.

That the secessionists argued that such abuse existed is also
hardly surprising. Such a claim was necessary, not only to encourage
secessionist sentiment among the reluctant, but to justify it as an act of
revolution. However, Mr. McCain's thesis is that the United States is like
the Elk's Club. A state, having joined voluntarily, is free to leave
voluntarily. In other words, in his view (and of course in the view of
many if not most of the secessionists of the 1860's), secession is _not_ a
revolutionary act. No abuse need exist in order to invoke the right of
secession, since the exercise of that right is not contingent on the
existence of any abuse.

>>"It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down
>>by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced
>>by one who understands the subject.
>
>>"James Madison"
>
>I believe Mr. Madison objected to the possibility of petty differences
>threatening the nation as a whole. In 1860, the differences between
>the sections were hardly petty.

In the passage quoted above, Madison objects to the theory, advanced by
South Carolina secessionists of the 1830's, that secession is an inherent legal
right of states, whose exercise is not contingent upon the existence
of differences, petty or otherwise. As a former revolutionary, he did
not object to the theory that there is natural right of revolution
against oppressive government; Lincoln and most other Americans,
North and South, did not object either.

You are correct that the differences between the sections in 1860
were not petty. That is not the same thing, however, as saying that
one section was engaged in "intolerable abuse" (Madison's criterion)
of the other. There were political differences between the sections.
The candidate of one of the sections won an election on a vote divided
along sectional lines. Seven states in the other section declared that
this in and of itself constituted an intolerable abuse and seceded
before the winning candidate was even inaugurated, much less had an
opportunity to engage in any abuses.

>>Time to remove Madison from the pantheon and place his name on the
>>list of scalawags. His understanding of the Constitution was hopelessly
>>biased by the fact of his having helped to write it.
>
>Gary, you should avoid this sort of sarcasm.

What sort of sarcasm would you prefer? But you're right, I regretted
having written it the instant I posted, as it added nothing to the
discussion. Chalk it up to momentary irritation with the claim that
Madison was an adherent of the United-States-as-Elk's-Lodge theory of
the Constitution --a theory that he was obviously quite at pains to deny.
Do you favor the Elk's lodge theory yourself, or do you believe that
a secession right is a revolutionary right, not a legal right?

- Gary Charbonneau

gary charbonneau

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <hubcap.839012631@hubcap>,
System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:

>The North was not honoring the fourth article of the Constitution,
>which South Carolina claimed was ``so material to the compact [Consti-
>tution], that without it that compact would not have been made.''

The reference here is, I presume, to Article IV, Section 4: "The
United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a
Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against
Invasion; and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive
(when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

>For years factions from the North actively encouraged servile insurrection
>in the South. Southerners hate waking up dead, having had their
>throats slit in the night. Southerners put up with this activity
>for 25 years, and when the agitators secured to their ``aid the
>power of the common Government'', South Carolina quit consenting
>to be governed by the common Government.

The actual encouragement of servile insurrection was not widespread. Lincoln
opposed the notion. Therefore, it is not clear that the agitators had
indeed secured the "aid and power of the common Government"
through Lincoln's election. Moreover, since Lincoln had not yet
assumed office before seven states seceded, the question of whether
the agitators had secured his aid and power was never put to the
test, as the conditional Unionists pointed out.

In any case, Southerners (and probably most Northerners too, but we are
discussing Southerners here) believed that, if one has certain rights, one
has a corresponding right under certain circumstances to secure those
rights by violence (but for this premise, there would have been no
Ciivil War). Consequently, the assertion by abolitionists that slaves
had a right to be free _automatically_ implied to many Southerners the
advocacy of a right to servile insurrection and to slit throats (regardless of
whether the abolitionists might in fact be Quakers who abhorred violence,
who might advocate acts no more "insurrectionary" than running away).

The demand that _insurrectionist_ propaganda must be suppressed seemed
to lead inevitably to the demand that _abolitionist_ propaganda might be
suppressed, since the two were considered one and the same. And while even the
Republicans might have consented to the suppression of insurrectionist
propaganda, they most certainly never would have consented to the
suppression of abolitionist propaganda. Question: Would Lincoln's
hypothetical refusal to refuse to suppress all abolitionist propaganda
have constituted an "abuse"? Would it have been an abuse of sufficient
magnitude to justify an act of revolution?

In any event, secession was at best a partial solution to the perceived
problem of the advocacy of servile insurrection by Northern
factions -- because one thing it very definitely would not and could not
do was to halt the advocacy of servile insurrection by Northern factions.
True, it would secure the Southern mails from the passage of abolitionist
literature (whether advocating "servile insurrection" or merely asserting
that slaves had a right to be free). Quite probably, a compromise could
have been worked out allowing the seizure of any literature advocating
violent insurrection, but that would not have been good enough, since any
advocacy of a freedom right was considered by extension an advocacy of
a right of insurrection.

Having said that, I think that secessionists were perhaps less interested in
controlling Southern post offices to prevent the passage of abolitionist
propaganda than they were in controlling post office patronage. This,
they feared, could be the foot in the door to the Republicanization of
the non-slaveholding white majority of the South. If the South were
Republicanized, slavery was in real trouble -- Republican pledges to respect
the rights of the states to control their own domestic institutions would
tend to become moot, since the states themselves might take action against
slavery.

- Gary Charbonneau

paul rodi

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

Did you read Maury's post from yesterday entitled"A Vindication of
Virginia and the South" by Commodore Matthew Fontaine Maury? The arguments
in the article are very good, but then, I'm just a "southern partisan".


Dave Smith

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:

>In article <4tqut6$j...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, dmsmi...@aol.com (Dave
>Smith) writes:

>> In a remarkable sentence, you conveniently forget the
>>sacrifices and untold valor shown by African Americans who served
>>in the Union armies.

>Just because I do not mention something doesn't mean that I have forgotten
>it. And African-Americans sacrificed as much and showed as much valor in
>their service to the Confederacy.

On an individual by individual basis, perhaps. But certainly not
on a North vs. South basis.

REB 4 LIFE

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4ttpr8$b...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, dmsmi...@aol.com (Dave
Smith) writes:

<RSM writes>

>>Just because I do not mention something doesn't mean that I have
forgotten
>>it. And African-Americans sacrificed as much and showed as much valor in
>>their service to the Confederacy.
>
>On an individual by individual basis, perhaps. But certainly not
>on a North vs. South basis.

I agree with Dave on this. There are numerous instances of the loyal and
faithful
service of Black men in CS service, but the assertion that thousands were
under
arms is not supported by any facts that are apparent to me.

IMO, such claims are merely a backlash against those PC types who assert
that Blacks had no interest in, nor contributions toward, a Confederate
victory.
Such assertions are quite wrong, but there is no need to inflate any
rebuttal
beyond what is documentable.

In making the above statement, I will no doubt be at cross-purposes with
many of my SCV compatriots, but I feel it important to stick with the
"real
goods" in this type of argument with PCers. Personally, I would still be
an ardent Southron had not one single Black man took the field for the
South.

R4L


gary charbonneau

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4ttpnh$9...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
gary charbonneau <char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

>Question: Would Lincoln's
>hypothetical refusal to refuse to suppress all abolitionist propaganda

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>have constituted an "abuse"? Would it have been an abuse of sufficient
>magnitude to justify an act of revolution?

Sorry, that was even more inarticulate than usual. The question on the
table obviously is: "Would Lincoln's hypothetical refusal to suppress all


abolitionist propaganda have constituted an 'abuse'?"

- Gary Charbonneau

gary charbonneau

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4ts2cd$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:

>Was the ordinance of secession issued by some splinter group? Was it
>hatched by bomb-throwing terrorists convening in cellars and alleyways? Or
>was secession, rather, approved and ordained by a peaceful assembly of
>Virginia's duly-elected representatives? What was there in this to which
>Lincoln could rightfully object? If a man joins the Elks Lodge and then
>wishes to quit, do the remaining members put a pistol to his head and
>force him to stay? Dr. Pitcavage makes the Union into an American Cosa
>Nostra, which one may leave only by death. This is scarcely a doctrine
>which Jefferson, Adams or Madison would have recognized as legitimate.

"Montpellier, Decr. 23, 1832

[To N.P. Trist]:

"Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the
South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views
of the doctrine of secession....

"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free,
is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually
and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right
to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to
it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of --98,
adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.
The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding
a _single_ party, with the _parties_ to the Constitutional compact of the
United States. The latter having made the compact way do what they will


with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till
released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the powers
created....

"It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down


by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced
by one who understands the subject.

"Jamees Madison"

Time to remove Madison from the pantheon and place his name on the
list of scalawags. His understanding of the Constitution was hopelessly
biased by the fact of his having helped to write it.

- Gary Charbonneau

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4ts2cd$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>Was the ordinance of secession issued by some splinter group? Was it
>hatched by bomb-throwing terrorists convening in cellars and alleyways? Or
>was secession, rather, approved and ordained by a peaceful assembly of
>Virginia's duly-elected representatives? What was there in this to which
>Lincoln could rightfully object? If a man joins the Elks Lodge and then
>wishes to quit, do the remaining members put a pistol to his head and
>force him to stay? Dr. Pitcavage makes the Union into an American Cosa
>Nostra, which one may leave only by death. This is scarcely a doctrine
>which Jefferson, Adams or Madison would have recognized as legitimate.

The Union was not the Elks Lodge.

James F. Epperson

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

Unfortunately, Paul, the article in question contains a number of
historical errors. It no doubt is a sincere effort on the part of its
author to make a case in defense of Virginia, but he is barely out of the
blocks before he is making mistakes. He claims early on that Virginia had
undisputed dominion over the Old Northwest Territory, when in fact most of
the Northern colonies had claims to at least part of that land (for
example, the so-called Western Reserve part of Ohio, along the Lake Erie
coast, was claimed by Connecticut; "Western Reserve" = "Western Reserve of
Connecticut"); he states that at the time of the writing of the
Constitution that the 13 states were as independent of each other as Spain
is of France, ignoring the perpetual union clause of the Articles of
Confederation. I could go on, but having found two such egregious gaffes
in the first page I am inclined not to.

Jim Epperson | I would like to see truthful
Department of Mathematical Sciences | history written -- US Grant
University of Alabama in Huntsville +-------------------------------------
eppe...@math.uah.edu URL: http://www.math.uah.edu/~epperson
URL: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson


RStacy2229

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4tqctf$l...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:

>"4. That the Democratic Party are in favor of the acquisition of the
>island of Cuba on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just
>to Spain at the earliest practicable moment."

Oh, that the vindictive forces of the North, in pursuing their
"acquisition" of Dixie, had resolved themselves to a course "honorable to
ourselves and just to" the South. Arguably, the prosecution of the war was
one of the most dishonorable injustices ever committed by the United
States government.

RStacy2229

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4tpdha$c...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:

>my goal was to provide Southern land for the freemen while
>not completely divesting anyone of all their property, even if would have
>been
>justice to see it done in some cases.
>

But why "SOUTHERN land," Mark? This is the central point: In their plan to
confiscate and redistribute SOUTHERN land to the freedmen, the Yankees
made it abundantly clear that their plan was to control the South
politically, through the loyalty of their recent beneficiaries.
Furthermore, the Yankees intended to prevent at all costs the migration of
large numbers of freedmen to the West, where the Republican Party had
declared from the beginning they intended only white men to live. And they
CERTAINLY didn't want hundreds of thousands of former slaves moving up
North, as had been demonstrated by the New York Draft Riots.

Then again, the goal of confiscation was NEVER to benefit the ex-slaves,
but to punish the ex-masters. The freedmen were pawns in a Republican
chess game, as the entire slavery question had been a Yankee political
tool from the get-go. Until you come to grips with that, you'll never
understand the war, reconstruction or anything else that has transpired
since. This was politics, and politics is about power. Witness the fruit
of Northern victory -- the Gilded Age in particular -- and it takes a very
blind man not to guess what sort of tree it sprang from.

Robert Stacy McCain

REB 4 LIFE

unread,
Aug 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/2/96
to

In article <4ttgs9$p...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:

<prior inclusions snipped>

>>Please note the last portion of this sentence. Just who, pray tell
>>is qualified to judge what constitutes "intolerable abuse of the
>>powers"? Is it the "abuser" or the "abusee"?
>
>That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? When is revolution legitimate?
>Do you believe that the opinion of the revolutionaries must always
>carry the day, solely because they are the revolutionaries?

Not necessarily, but then again, these are "my" revolutionaries, and
my personal heritage.

>>The South thought such abuse present, and determined to leave.
>>That the Unionists declared such "abuse" non-existent is hardly
surprising.

>That the secessionists argued that such abuse existed is also
>hardly surprising. Such a claim was necessary, not only to encourage
>secessionist sentiment among the reluctant, but to justify it as an act
of
>revolution.

Indeed true. There is then an impasse in this line of thinking...

> However, Mr. McCain's thesis is that the United States is like
>the Elk's Club. A state, having joined voluntarily, is free to leave
>voluntarily. In other words, in his view (and of course in the view of
>many if not most of the secessionists of the 1860's), secession is _not_
a
>revolutionary act. No abuse need exist in order to invoke the right of
>secession, since the exercise of that right is not contingent on the
>existence of any abuse.

As I read the 10th Amendment, this is also correct. I just didn't feel
like picking an argument with James Madison, who is *still* my
intellectual superior even though he is quite dead. (Insert pithy
retort here...)

>>>"It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down
>>>by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced
>>>by one who understands the subject.
>>

>>>"James Madison"
>>
>>I believe Mr. Madison objected to the possibility of petty differences
>>threatening the nation as a whole. In 1860, the differences between
>>the sections were hardly petty.
>
>In the passage quoted above, Madison objects to the theory, advanced by
>South Carolina secessionists of the 1830's, that secession is an inherent
>legal
>right of states, whose exercise is not contingent upon the existence
>of differences, petty or otherwise. As a former revolutionary, he did
>not object to the theory that there is natural right of revolution
>against oppressive government; Lincoln and most other Americans,
>North and South, did not object either.

In the words of the immortal Herb Tarlek, General Sales Manager of
WKRP Radio -- "Okay, fine."

>You are correct that the differences between the sections in 1860
>were not petty. That is not the same thing, however, as saying that
>one section was engaged in "intolerable abuse" (Madison's criterion)
>of the other. There were political differences between the sections.
>The candidate of one of the sections won an election on a vote divided
>along sectional lines. Seven states in the other section declared that
>this in and of itself constituted an intolerable abuse and seceded
>before the winning candidate was even inaugurated, much less had an
>opportunity to engage in any abuses.

I believe this is over-simplified. I refer you to Mr. System Janitor's
post
of the South Carolina declaration.

>>>Time to remove Madison from the pantheon and place his name on the
>>>list of scalawags. His understanding of the Constitution was
hopelessly
>>>biased by the fact of his having helped to write it.

>>Gary, you should avoid this sort of sarcasm.

>What sort of sarcasm would you prefer?

Nice one...

> But you're right, I regretted
>having written it the instant I posted, as it added nothing to the
>discussion.

A good barb is always fun to read, even if its factual content is nil.

<snip>

>Do you favor the Elk's lodge theory yourself, or do you believe that
>a secession right is a revolutionary right, not a legal right?

For my purposes, you can flip that coin and I come up a winner
regardless of which side ends up on top.

R4L / T. Reb

cwood

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

In article <4ts268$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) says:
>

>The question was, whether Southerners who had lost their nation, their
>sons, their property and their politicial rights should be subjected to
>further depredations at the hands of those who perpetrated those wrongs,
>by having the Yankees seize their lands as well. Let us see how Pitcavage
>can justify that.

The moral issue of confiscation is an interesting one. The American
loyalists who supported their lawful sovereign against traitors lost
their property, as well as sons, political rights, and their nation.
The logic of the argument can be extended to the American revolution.
C Wood

REB 4 LIFE

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960802113018.5849L-100000@zonker>, "James F.
Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu> writes:

<snippage>

>Once this point is reached we have a
>justification for the war as an effort to put down a rebellion, since
that
>is the Unionist perspective, which within this framework is at least as
>valid as the secessionist one.

Well, it ain't valid from where I sit. If it's *your* "rebellion" that
is being put down, that qualifies as oppression. Either way, through
force of arms against the Confederacy, or through political control
effected through a growing population base in the North and West,
the South was going to be "put down" eventually. Sort of qualifies
Edmund Ruffin as some sort of prophet, don't it?

R4L


gary charbonneau

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

In article <4tuce3$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

REB 4 LIFE <reb4...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4ttgs9$p...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:

>> However, Mr. McCain's thesis is that the United States is like
>>the Elk's Club. A state, having joined voluntarily, is free to leave
>>voluntarily. In other words, in his view (and of course in the view of
>>many if not most of the secessionists of the 1860's), secession is _not_
>>a revolutionary act. No abuse need exist in order to invoke the right of
>>secession, since the exercise of that right is not contingent on the
>>existence of any abuse.
>
>As I read the 10th Amendment, this is also correct. I just didn't feel
>like picking an argument with James Madison, who is *still* my
>intellectual superior even though he is quite dead. (Insert pithy
>retort here...)

Madison's intelligence is not at issue. The question is not whether
allowing legal secession was a smart thing to do, but whether it was
actually done. I take Madison's words as evidence regarding what
the Founding Fathers (one Founding Father at least) thought they
were doing.

My reading of the 10th Amendment is quite different from yours. I
do not believe that it entails a secession right, for the following
reasons:

1. The other amendments in the Bill of Rights spell out specific
rights retained by the people or by the states because those rights
are believed to be particularly important. The 10th Amendment covers
rights of lesser importance, or perhaps sufficiently obvious as to not
need mentioning.

A secession right, if it existed, would be the most fundamental right that
states would possess, and its deliberate omission from the list of explicit
rights in the amendments preceding the 10th would be extremely curious.
Perhaps it is one of the "shadows" and "penumbras" of rights lurking therein,
but it is odd that the authors of the Bill of Rights would have de-
liberately intended to hide it there in the shadows.

It also seems unlikely that a secession right was not explicitly mentioned
only because it was too obvious to need mentioning. One of the
Constitution's principal authors, Madison, didn't think it was obvious at all.

2. Neither the Constitution nor any subsequent U.S. law made any
provision for an obvious implication of legal secession -- the
distribution of the assets and liabilities of the Union in the
event of dissolution. Could a state secede without assuming
its portion of the national debt? How was its portion to be
determined? If a state seceded, what was to become of the U.S.
government property (e.g., Fort Sumter) located in its territory?
Since the law did not provide otherwise, the conclusion is
inescapable that, upon South Carolina's secession, Fort Sumter
remained the property of the United States government and of the
people of the United States.

Assume the premise that secession were legal. It resulted in a situation in
which South Carolina and the Confederacy, although legally independent,
found themselves containing pockets of what was indisputedly the property of
a foreign government. This is a highly peculiar anomaly. The most
logical way of accounting for the anomaly is to question the initial
premise regarding the legality of secession.

- Gary Charbonneau

paul rodi

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu

char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>In article <4tuce3$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>REB 4 LIFE <reb4...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <4ttgs9$p...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>
>>> However, Mr. McCain's thesis is that the United States is like
>>>the Elk's Club. A state, having joined voluntarily, is free to leave
>>>voluntarily. In other words, in his view (and of course in the view of
>>>many if not most of the secessionists of the 1860's), secession is _not_
>>>a revolutionary act. No abuse need exist in order to invoke the right of
>>>secession, since the exercise of that right is not contingent on the
>>>existence of any abuse.
>>
>>As I read the 10th Amendment, this is also correct. I just didn't feel
>>like picking an argument with James Madison, who is *still* my
>>intellectual superior even though he is quite dead. (Insert pithy
>>retort here...)
>

I will assume the premise because I believe it to be so. However, this is
not a "highly peculiar anomaly". If it is, then how do you explain the
presence of the various military bases the U.S. has today in France,
England, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

We are there at the invitation of those countries or as part of an
alliance. If the host country no longer desires or has need of our
military presence, would they not be justified in requesting that we
leave? And would they not be justified in reacting in a hostile manner if
we refused? In my opinion, and in the eyes of the world, yes they would.

Therefore, since South Carolina and the rest of the Confederacy, believed
that secession was legal, and that they were an independent and sovereign
nation, they had the right to demand that those "pockets of what was
indisputedly the property of a foreign government" be abandoned.
Especially since that government was a hostile government. When that
foreign government not only refused to abandon its base in Charleston
harbor, but attempted to resupply it, the Confederacy was left with only
one option.

Dave Smith

unread,
Aug 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/5/96
to

"James F. Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu> wrote:

>On 2 Aug 1996, Tennessee Reb wrote:

>> On Aug 02, 1996 13:37:19 in article <Re: Confiscation & Dr. Pitcavage (Was
>> Reconstruction)>, 'char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)'
>> wrote:
>>
>>

>> >The latter having made the compact way do what they will
>> >with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till

>> >released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the powers
>> >created....

>>
>> Please note the last portion of this sentence. Just who, pray tell
>> is qualified to judge what constitutes "intolerable abuse of the

>> powers"? Is it the "abuser" or the "abusee"? The South thought

>> such abuse present, and determined to leave. That the Unionists
>> declared such "abuse" non-existent is hardly surprising.

>OK, this is a reasonable point of view to take, but it opens up a whole


>can of worms that I am not sure you want to eat. For one thing, what was
>the "intolerable abuse of powers" that existed? I have asked this
>question about a zillion times, and I have yet to get any kind of rational
>answer. As of December 19, 1860, what abuse of powers had taken place
>that justified South Carolina's secession?

To the best I can tell (and those of you who read here know
I don't often post in these kinds of threads), the general
balance of "abuse of power", as explained here, is generally one
of future expected "abuse". In other words, the election of
Lincoln would cause . . . as opposed to finite statements of the
election of Lincoln "has caused".

Since we were using Gary's quotation from Madison's letters,
I would have to think that the former President's use of the term
"abuse" would be more geared towards abuses that had actually
happened.

I have to agree with Jim here. The lack of documented
abuses by the North seriously weakens any consideration of a hurt
South trying to escape the clutches of the North. It still
doesn't mean the South was not entitled to try to leave; it just
means the cause in 1860-61 wasn't quite as noble in those terms
as some would have us believe.

snips

Charles Ten Brink

unread,
Aug 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/6/96
to

In article <4u5b7d$7...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,

gary charbonneau <char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>It also seems unlikely that a secession right was not explicitly mentioned
>only because it was too obvious to need mentioning. One of the
>Constitution's principal authors, Madison, didn't think it was obvious at all.
>
I have always found this argument (that everyone was in such perfect
agreement that a right of secession existed that it simply wasn't
discussed at all) to be, well, mystifying. Plenty of other rights
that everyone agreed existed were firmly and explicitly enshrined
in the Bill of Rights. And unlike, say, habeas corpus, a right
of secession had not previously existed (under the Articles of
Confederation).

If the Constitution had been intended to adopt such a change in
the nature of the Union, or if the Virginia or New York ratifications
were intended to reserve such a right, I would expect *someone*,
*somewhere*, to have commented upon it. As in, "gee, Virginia
sez she can bolt any time she wants; that's novel". I've yet
to find any such statement made at the time of the adoption of
the Constitution. The arguments made years later all smell rather
like the Archbishop's speech from _Henry V_. (Hey, Axel, we're
back to Shakespeare again!)
Yours,
Chuck Ten Brink
--
Associate Law Librarian < He did not catch babies with a spearhead as
D'Angelo Law Library, UC * was the practice of other Vikings; for this
c-ten...@uchicago.edu > reason he was called "child-friend".

gary charbonneau

unread,
Aug 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/6/96
to

In article <4u5gg3$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:

>>Assume the premise that secession were legal. It resulted in a situation in
>>which South Carolina and the Confederacy, although legally independent,
>>found themselves containing pockets of what was indisputedly the property of
>>a foreign government. This is a highly peculiar anomaly. The most
>>logical way of accounting for the anomaly is to question the initial
>>premise regarding the legality of secession.
>>
>>- Gary Charbonneau
>
>I will assume the premise because I believe it to be so. However, this is
>not a "highly peculiar anomaly". If it is, then how do you explain the
>presence of the various military bases the U.S. has today in France,
>England, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
>
>We are there at the invitation of those countries or as part of an
>alliance. If the host country no longer desires or has need of our
>military presence, would they not be justified in requesting that we
>leave? And would they not be justified in reacting in a hostile manner if
>we refused? In my opinion, and in the eyes of the world, yes they would.

The bases in question are there presumably as a result of treaties or
agreements which the United States has with the host countries. There
would be no question of permanent ownership of the base by the United
States, but only of its occupation for some stated or indefinite
period of time.

Fort Sumter was not in Charleston Harbor because of some treaty between the
United States and South Carolina, under which South Carolina specified that
the United States was allowed to build a fort in Charleston Harbor, and to
retain it only so long as South Carolina wished it to remain there. Fort
Sumter was there because the United States has the right to build military
bases in the territory of the United States (subject to certain obvious legal
requirements such as purchase or ownership of land).

Your analogy to an American base in Germany is not correct. A more
appropriate analogy would be to a German military base in Germany.

- Gary Charbonneau


gary charbonneau

unread,
Aug 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/6/96
to

In article <Dvq1t...@midway.uchicago.edu>,

Charles Ten Brink <cj...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:

>I have always found this argument (that everyone was in such perfect
>agreement that a right of secession existed that it simply wasn't
>discussed at all) to be, well, mystifying. Plenty of other rights
>that everyone agreed existed were firmly and explicitly enshrined
>in the Bill of Rights. And unlike, say, habeas corpus, a right
>of secession had not previously existed (under the Articles of
>Confederation).
>
>If the Constitution had been intended to adopt such a change in
>the nature of the Union, or if the Virginia or New York ratifications
>were intended to reserve such a right, I would expect *someone*,
>*somewhere*, to have commented upon it. As in, "gee, Virginia
>sez she can bolt any time she wants; that's novel". I've yet
>to find any such statement made at the time of the adoption of
>the Constitution.

At the time that New York was considering ratification with reservations,
Madison wrote a private letter to Hamilton saying, in effect, "You guys can't
do that. Ratification has to be without reservation, or not at all." Of
course, Madison's own Virginia ratified with reservations.

There are really three questions here:

1. Whether any stated reservations had any legal standing (i.e., had to be
accepted by the other states). The ratification procedure made no provision
for reservations.

2. Whether, if reservations did have legal standing, the right of secession was
limited only to those states who ratified with reservations.

3. Whether Virginia was saying it could bolt any time it wanted.
Virginia's form of ratification did not in fact say that.

- Gary Charbonneau

paul rodi

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>In article <4u5gg3$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>
>>>Assume the premise that secession were legal. It resulted in a situation in
>>>which South Carolina and the Confederacy, although legally independent,
>>>found themselves containing pockets of what was indisputedly the property of
>>>a foreign government. This is a highly peculiar anomaly. The most
>>>logical way of accounting for the anomaly is to question the initial
>>>premise regarding the legality of secession.
>>>
>>>- Gary Charbonneau
>>
>>I will assume the premise because I believe it to be so. However, this is
>>not a "highly peculiar anomaly". If it is, then how do you explain the
>>presence of the various military bases the U.S. has today in France,
>>England, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
>>
>>We are there at the invitation of those countries or as part of an
>>alliance. If the host country no longer desires or has need of our
>>military presence, would they not be justified in requesting that we
>>leave? And would they not be justified in reacting in a hostile manner if
>>we refused? In my opinion, and in the eyes of the world, yes they would.
>
>The bases in question are there presumably as a result of treaties or
>agreements which the United States has with the host countries. There
>would be no question of permanent ownership of the base by the United
>States, but only of its occupation for some stated or indefinite
>period of time.
>
>Fort Sumter was not in Charleston Harbor because of some treaty between the
>United States and South Carolina, under which South Carolina specified that
>the United States was allowed to build a fort in Charleston Harbor, and to
>retain it only so long as South Carolina wished it to remain there. Fort
>Sumter was there because the United States has the right to build military
>bases in the territory of the United States (subject to certain obvious legal
>requirements such as purchase or ownership of land).
>

Sumter was there because of a treaty between the United States and South
Carolina. That treaty was the constitution, which required the U.S.
government to provide for the common defense. But as of Dec. 20, 1860
South Carolina had seceded from the union and, whether the U.S. government
recognized it or not, was a sovereign nation, therby making that treaty
null and void.


>Your analogy to an American base in Germany is not correct. A more
>appropriate analogy would be to a German military base in Germany.
>

Alright, using your logic, I'll substitute occupied West Berlin. Did not
the U.S. and Russia almost go to war over the blockade, and attempted
re-supply of West Berlin in 1947? Russia backed down, the Confederacy did
not.

>- Gary Charbonneau
>

gary charbonneau

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

In article <3206e184....@snews.zippo.com>,
Brian Hampton <rai...@chickasaw.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Aug 1996 11:44:17 -0500, "James F. Epperson"
><eppe...@math.uah.edu> wrote:
>
>>For one thing, what was the "intolerable abuse of powers" that existed?
>>I have asked this question about a zillion times, and I have yet to get
>>any kind of rational answer.

<snip>

>From my point of view, taking out the emotional baggage bound up in
>the issue involved, the Federal government's continued refusal to
>enforce laws legally enacted by majority would at the very least be a
>reason to start considering secession.

What laws are you referring to? The only law that I can think of that
you might be referring to is the Fugitive Slave Act. The Federal
government had certainly not refused to enforce it prior to Lincoln's
inauguration. Secessionists argued that the South should secede because
Lincoln would not enforce it. However, Lincoln had not said that he
wouldn't enforce it, and the Republican platform did not call for
non-enforcement. As far as the Federal government is concerned, I think
we're not talking about an actual "continued refusal," but about
allegations of a hypothetical future refusal.

>In the face of what other
>state governments were doing to further the Southern states' problems
>regarding their property, a very rational person might get the idea it
>is not in these states' best interests to remain within the Union.

True, but saying that something is not in one's best interest is
not logically equivalent to saying that one has been the victim
of an intolerable abuse of power. Moreover, any real or fancied
abuses carried out by "other state governments" cannot be blamed
on the Federal government. By withdrawing from the Federal government,
the Southern states were abandoning whatever leverage they had over the
state governments of the North. This makes it questionable whether
"a very rational person" could indeed say that it was not in the best
interests of the South to remain in the Union. The Federal
government could mandate the return of fugitive slaves from one state of the
Union to another. How could it mandate their return to a foreign
country?

- Gary Charbonneau

gary charbonneau

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

In article <3206e221....@snews.zippo.com>,
Brian Hampton <rai...@chickasaw.com> wrote:
>On 2 Aug 1996 18:19:53 GMT, char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary

>charbonneau) wrote:
>
>>In the passage quoted above, Madison objects to the theory, advanced by
>>South Carolina secessionists of the 1830's, that secession is an inherent
>>legal right of states, whose exercise is not contingent upon the existence
>>of differences, petty or otherwise.
>
>I disagree. I'm sure you would agree that the entire letter should be
>taken as a whole. As such, one cannot ignore that final line; I do
>not believe Madison would have written it had he not intended to. It
>is an integral part of the whole.

I'm not sure I understand the nature of your disagreement. Madison
is quite clear in his meaning. A state may not secede merely because it
wants to. It has the right to do so in the face of intolerable abuses
of power -- but that's simply a restatement of the _moral_ right of
revolution, not an assertion of a _legal_ right of secession.

>>You are correct that the differences between the sections in 1860
>>were not petty. That is not the same thing, however, as saying that
>>one section was engaged in "intolerable abuse" (Madison's criterion)
>>of the other. There were political differences between the sections.
>

>No, there was a great deal more than simple political differences as
>the Declarations of Secession quite vividly point out. The abuses of
>the Federal government were not necessarily in and of themselves
>enough to provoke secession. However, in the face of the new leader
>of that Federal government, who, it could easily be perceived, had in
>mind continuing such abuses if not expanding them, secession became a
>little more viable in many people's minds. Continue facing such
>abuses or be done with it?

As I have indicated in another post, it was not a matter of "continuing"
abuses by the Federal government, since such abuses had not yet occurred.
It was a case of justifying secession by pointing to abuses which had
not yet actually happened, but which might or might not happen in the
future. In other words, secession was the "pre-emptive counterrevolution"
of which James M. McPherson speaks.

- Gary Charbonneau

Ron Lenert

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to


<Snip>

>>Assume the premise that secession were legal. It resulted in a situation in
>>which South Carolina and the Confederacy, although legally independent,
>>found themselves containing pockets of what was indisputedly the property of
>>a foreign government. This is a highly peculiar anomaly. The most
>>logical way of accounting for the anomaly is to question the initial
>>premise regarding the legality of secession.
>>
>>- Gary Charbonneau
>
>I will assume the premise because I believe it to be so. However, this is
>not a "highly peculiar anomaly". If it is, then how do you explain the
>presence of the various military bases the U.S. has today in France,
>England, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
>
>We are there at the invitation of those countries or as part of an
>alliance. If the host country no longer desires or has need of our
>military presence, would they not be justified in requesting that we
>leave? And would they not be justified in reacting in a hostile manner if
>we refused? In my opinion, and in the eyes of the world, yes they would.

Like the U.S. Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for example?

System Janitor

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

Here's something I composed but failed to post...

I said:
* >The North was not honoring the fourth article of the Constitution,
* >which South Carolina claimed was ``so material to the compact [Consti-
* >tution], that without it that compact would not have been made.''

gary charbonneau (I hope) said:
* The reference here is, I presume, to Article IV, Section 4:

No, I think is is to Article IV, Section 2:

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation
therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be
delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may
be due.

* The actual encouragement of servile insurrection was not widespread.

I think the Southerners generally considered any phamplets, mailings,
pro-abolitionist leanings or anything considered anti-slavery
to be encouragement of servile insurrection. So, it didn't have to
be John Brown for them to call it insurrectionist.

* The demand that _insurrectionist_ propaganda must be suppressed seemed
* to lead inevitably to the demand that _abolitionist_ propaganda might be
* suppressed, since the two were considered one and the same.

-Mike

gary charbonneau

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

In article <4u9835$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:

>>Fort Sumter was not in Charleston Harbor because of some treaty between the
>>United States and South Carolina, under which South Carolina specified that
>>the United States was allowed to build a fort in Charleston Harbor, and to
>>retain it only so long as South Carolina wished it to remain there. Fort
>>Sumter was there because the United States has the right to build military
>>bases in the territory of the United States (subject to certain obvious legal
>>requirements such as purchase or ownership of land).
>
>Sumter was there because of a treaty between the United States and South
>Carolina. That treaty was the constitution, which required the U.S.
>government to provide for the common defense.

Who signed this treaty on behalf of the United States? No one.
That's because it was not a treaty between the United States and South
Carolina. It was a law setting up a new form of government for the United
States.

>But as of Dec. 20, 1860
>South Carolina had seceded from the union and, whether the U.S. government
>recognized it or not, was a sovereign nation, therby making that treaty
>null and void.

The "treaty" contained no provision for one party to declare it null
and void. If one party nevertheless proceeded to do so, why should not
the other parties had every right to consider this a violation of the
"treaty"? If the British were to have declared the Treaty of Paris
(ending the Revolutionary War) null and void, would that have given them
the legal right to reclaim South Carolina?

>
>>Your analogy to an American base in Germany is not correct. A more
>>appropriate analogy would be to a German military base in Germany.
>>
>
>Alright, using your logic, I'll substitute occupied West Berlin. Did not
>the U.S. and Russia almost go to war over the blockade, and attempted
>re-supply of West Berlin in 1947? Russia backed down, the Confederacy did
>not.

How does this in any way "use my logic?" Instead of "occupied West Berlin",
substitute "Munich". Unless, in my ignorance, I radically misunderstand
the nature of German federalism, I do not think that the German government
requires a treaty with Bavaria to build a barracks in Munich. Nor do I
think that Bavaria has the legal authority under some "treaty" to demand
that the German government vacate such a barracks.

- Gary Charbonneau

gary charbonneau

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

In article <hubcap.839445309@hubcap>,

System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>Here's something I composed but failed to post...
>
>I said:
> * >The North was not honoring the fourth article of the Constitution,
> * >which South Carolina claimed was ``so material to the compact [Consti-
> * >tution], that without it that compact would not have been made.''
>
>gary charbonneau (I hope) said:
> * The reference here is, I presume, to Article IV, Section 4:
>
>No, I think is is to Article IV, Section 2:
>
> No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof,
> escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation
> therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be
> delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may
> be due.

That's what I discovered when I subsequently checked the text of the
declaration. However, I was then puzzled by what appeared to your reference
to it in the context of slit throats. Hindering the return of runaways and
advocating the slitting of throats would seem to be acts of quite a
different nature.

- Gary Charbonneau

paul rodi

unread,
Aug 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/7/96
to

char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>In article <4u9835$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>
>>>Fort Sumter was not in Charleston Harbor because of some treaty between the
>>>United States and South Carolina, under which South Carolina specified that
>>>the United States was allowed to build a fort in Charleston Harbor, and to
>>>retain it only so long as South Carolina wished it to remain there. Fort
>>>Sumter was there because the United States has the right to build military
>>>bases in the territory of the United States (subject to certain obvious legal
>>>requirements such as purchase or ownership of land).
>>
>>Sumter was there because of a treaty between the United States and South
>>Carolina. That treaty was the constitution, which required the U.S.
>>government to provide for the common defense.
>
>Who signed this treaty on behalf of the United States? No one.
>That's because it was not a treaty between the United States and South
>Carolina. It was a law setting up a new form of government for the United
>States.
>

According to Webster's dictionary a treaty is "an agreement between
states; a pact". So, yes the constitution was a treaty. It was signed by
all the states in the form of ratification. It was a "pact" between the
government and the state of South Carolina.


>>But as of Dec. 20, 1860
>>South Carolina had seceded from the union and, whether the U.S. government
>>recognized it or not, was a sovereign nation, therby making that treaty
>>null and void.
>
>The "treaty" contained no provision for one party to declare it null
>and void. If one party nevertheless proceeded to do so, why should not
>the other parties had every right to consider this a violation of the
>"treaty"? If the British were to have declared the Treaty of Paris
>(ending the Revolutionary War) null and void, would that have given them
>the legal right to reclaim South Carolina?
>

The "treaty" also contained no provision for one party NOT to declare it
null and void. That question was not answered fully until Appomattox. In
South Carolina's, and the rest of the Confederacy's eyes, the federal
government had already broken the "treaty".


>>

>>>Your analogy to an American base in Germany is not correct. A more
>>>appropriate analogy would be to a German military base in Germany.
>>>
>>
>>Alright, using your logic, I'll substitute occupied West Berlin. Did not
>>the U.S. and Russia almost go to war over the blockade, and attempted
>>re-supply of West Berlin in 1947? Russia backed down, the Confederacy did
>>not.
>
>How does this in any way "use my logic?" Instead of "occupied West Berlin",
>substitute "Munich". Unless, in my ignorance, I radically misunderstand
>the nature of German federalism, I do not think that the German government
>requires a treaty with Bavaria to build a barracks in Munich. Nor do I
>think that Bavaria has the legal authority under some "treaty" to demand
>that the German government vacate such a barracks.
>
>- Gary Charbonneau

The German government would require a treaty if Bavaria is a foreign
country. In South Carolina's eyes, she was a foreign government and was
within her rights to request that the government in Washington vacate Fort
Sumter. When those requests were ignored, she did what any sovereign would
have done.


gary charbonneau

unread,
Aug 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/8/96
to

In article <4ub1bh$d...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>According to Webster's dictionary a treaty is "an agreement between
>states; a pact". So, yes the constitution was a treaty. It was signed by
>all the states in the form of ratification. It was a "pact" between the
>government and the state of South Carolina.

And again I ask: Who signed this pact on behalf of the government?
No one.

<snip>

>The "treaty" also contained no provision for one party NOT to declare it
>null and void.

And is it customary for treaties to contain an implicit provision allowing
for their own violation? In such a case, why bother with treaties?

>That question was not answered fully until Appomattox. In
>South Carolina's, and the rest of the Confederacy's eyes, the federal
>government had already broken the "treaty".

Yes and no. It would be more correct to say that, in the eyes of South
Carolina and the rest of the Confederacy, the federal government was
_going to_ break the "treaty" once Lincoln took control of the executive
branch. The argument of many of the conditional Unionists was that,
although Lincoln probably _would_ violate the "treaty", there were no moral
grounds for secession until he had actually done so. In the case of South
Carolina and the other Lower South states, this advice was clearly
disregarded. They seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated.

It is true that there were arguments about "treaty violations" which had
occurred prior to Lincoln's inaugural. The strongest of those arguments
centered around Northern resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act. However,
no Northern state (not even the most radical, Massachusetts), ever went
so far as to declare the Fugitive Slave Act, or the Constitutional provision
for the return of fugitive slaves, to be null and void. The personal
liberty laws mostly sought to extend to alleged fugitives legal protections
similar to those granted to accused criminals (if you claimed that
a person was your fugitive slave, you had to be prepared to prove it),
and in general made enforcement of the act more difficult but not
impossible. But please note that claims of "treaty violations" involving
the Fugitive Slave Act did not involve alleged violations of the "treaty"
by the Federal government, but rather by _state_ governments. The Federal
government was the enforcer of the "treaty."

Other arguments about "treaty violations" were more forced. Here's
one: Lincoln's election was a violation of the Constitution because
some Northern states allowed blacks to vote. Instead of setting
aside the black votes, the entire electoral votes of any state which permitted
black voting should be set aside. Good argument?

Many Southerners zestfully advocated violating the spirit and/or letter
of certain provisions of the "treaty" when necessary to protect their
interests -- Art. IV. Sec. 3 para 2, Art. VI para 2, and Art. I of the
Amendments to the "treaty" all come to mind. The assertion, therefore, that
the "treaty" was null and void because of Northern violations smacks of a
certain amount of chutzpah. The assertion that the treaty could be
declared null and void by one of the parties to it, even if it had not
been violated by any of the other parties, is an argument of quite a
different order from one based on a claim of violations.

<snip>

>The German government would require a treaty if Bavaria is a foreign
>country. In South Carolina's eyes, she was a foreign government and was
>within her rights to request that the government in Washington vacate Fort
>Sumter. When those requests were ignored, she did what any sovereign would
>have done.

Does Bavaria have a right, under German law, to consider itself a foreign
country "in its eyes"?

- Gary Charbonneau

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Aug 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/8/96
to
>>Who signed this treaty on behalf of the United States? No one.
>>That's because it was not a treaty between the United States and South
>>Carolina. It was a law setting up a new form of government for the United
>>States.
>>
>
>According to Webster's dictionary a treaty is "an agreement between
>states; a pact". So, yes the constitution was a treaty. It was signed by
>all the states in the form of ratification. It was a "pact" between the
>government and the state of South Carolina.

No state government ratified the Constitution. Conventions of the people
within the various states ratified the document. This was purposely done by
the Founding Fathers to exclude state governments from the process as much as
possible, and it significance was not lost on the antifederalists, who saw the
phrase "we the people" as a direct rebuff against the notion of a compact of
sovereign states. Sam Adams and Patrick Henry had notable quotes on this
subject, which my memory cannot, alas, reproduce.

gary charbonneau

unread,
Aug 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/8/96
to

In article <4ud41n$s...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:

>>And again I ask: Who signed this pact on behalf of the government?
>>No one.
>>

>The president when, in his oath of office, he swears to "uphold, protect
>and defend the Constitution of the United States".

That's an answer, only not an answer to the question being put to you. Who
signed the Constitution on behalf of the United States?

And if you are arguing that secession was justified because Lincoln
had violated his oath of office, let me remind you (just one more time,
if I might) that seven states seceded before Lincoln ever took
that oath.

>>>The "treaty" also contained no provision for one party NOT to declare it
>>>null and void.
>>
>>And is it customary for treaties to contain an implicit provision allowing
>>for their own violation? In such a case, why bother with treaties?
>>

>Why can you, as a unionist, say that it contains an implicit provision
>that it can not be broken, but I as a secessionist, can not say that it
>contains an implicit provision that it can be broken?

Because then it would be extremely silly to justify secession on the grounds
that it had been broken. It contains an implicit provision
that it may be broken, right? And why bother with all this stuff about
the president swearing to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution?
The Constitution contains an implicit provision that he may violate
the Constitution, correct? Or is this an implicit right reserved to
states only?

>The United States government has broken treaties whenever it suited it's
>own needs. Just ask the Cheyenne, or the Sioux, or the Apache, Cherokee,
>etc.

But those treaties, like all treaties, contained implicit provisions that
they could be broken, right? Or is your argument that the Southern
states could secede because the government had violated treaties with
the Indians? Strange argument....

<snip>

>If the Federal government, as the enforcer of the treaty, does nothing to
>resolve these disputes between the state governments, then it is guilty of
>not "providing for domestic tranquility" as it pledges to do in the
>preamble to the constitution.

The argument does nothing to buttress your case. I think you have just
allowed the Federal government's right to resolve that dispute between the
Northern and Southern states known by some as the "Civil War."

>>Other arguments about "treaty violations" were more forced. Here's
>>one: Lincoln's election was a violation of the Constitution because
>>some Northern states allowed blacks to vote. Instead of setting
>>aside the black votes, the entire electoral votes of any state which
>>permitted black voting should be set aside. Good argument?
>>

>So, what you're saying here is states rights is a valid position when it
>applies to the North, but it's not a valid position when it applies to the
>South.

Nope. I'm saying:

(1) That Southerners were inconsistent advocates of states rights. They
generally had no problem with Taney's _obiter_, in _Dred Scott_, that a
state had no right to allow citizenship to blacks. A reasonable reading
reading of the Constitution suggests that it gives states the rights to
determine their own citizenship requirements. I'm also saying:

(2) That it is particularly egregious to make the argument that, if
_one_ black were allowed to vote in a Northern state, the ballots
of hundreds of thousands of white voters in the same state should be
disregarded. Why not simply disregard the one black vote?

<snip>

>>Does Bavaria have a right, under German law, to consider itself a foreign
>>country "in its eyes"?
>>
>>- Gary Charbonneau
>

>Not knowing German law I can't say definitively. I will say this, South
>Carolina and the rest of the Confederate States, after petioning the
>government for "redress of grievances", and finding that those petitions
>fell on deaf ears, called a convention of her PEOPLE and that convention
>voted to break away and establish their own government.

Now that you've said that, explain to me why the government any longer
had to pay any attention to petitions for redress of grievances? Didn't
the Gag Rule, instituted at the behest of Southerners in violation
of the spirit of the First Amendment, constitute a precedent that
petitions for redress of grievances could in the future be disregarded
without consideration by the government?

>They had no desire
>to overthrow the government of the United States and impose their will on
>the Northern states.

No? Then why did they threaten to secede if Lincoln were elected? Wasn't
that political blackmail designed precisely to "impose their will on
the Northern states"? Why did a few of the more outre secessionists
make the silly argument that Northern votes for Lincoln should be set aside
in order to allow Breckinridge (who had garnered only half of Lincoln's
popular vote) to claim victory? Was this not also a claim of a right to
"impose their will on the Northern states"? Why did the conditional
Unionists draw up lists of non-negotiable demands and state that, if those
demands were not met, the South would secede? Was this not also designed to
"impose their will on the Northern states"?

>Yet that's exactly what the Northern states did to
>the South.

You see? The two of us _can_ agree on something after all.

- Gary Charbonneau

James F. Epperson

unread,
Aug 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/8/96
to

[I have changed the thread header to remove Mark's name and reflect the
subject matter]

On 9 Aug 1996, paul rodi wrote:

[snips]

> There never was an implicit right to violate the Constitution, but, there
> was an implicit right for one party to be able to leave if they felt
> strongly enough that they had been wronged. That was not a violation of
> the Constitution.

In your opinion. In Mr. Madison's opinion (he wrote the document,
remember) it would have been.

[snips]

> In the Constitution the right to resolve differences between the states is
> with the Supreme Court, not by armed invasion.

Good point. Why didn't the secessionist use this avenue instead of
taking a path that they had good reason to believe would lead to war?
Lincoln did not resort to armed invasion until the United States flag had
been fired upon for a second time.

[snips]

> OK, here we agree. Throw out the questionable votes. But given the
> passions of the times(and still today given the discussions in this
> group)is it not reasonable for the South to have thought, if they cheated
> on those votes, how many others are fraudulent?

So allowing blacks to vote is "cheating"? That is what Gary is talking
about here: Some of the states complained that Lincoln was elected by
letting blacks vote, ergo his election was somehow illegal or immoral.

[snips]

> I have checked through all the books I have and can find no reference to
> the Gag Rule. Admittedly, the large part of my collection is on the
> military aspects of the war. I would appreciate some titles (balanced
> points of view) so that I can discuss this knowledgeably.

A recent book is ARGUING ABOUT SLAVERY. In brief, the Gag Rule
controversy came up in the 1830's, when several Northern (Massachusetts?)
groups sent petitions to Congress asking that slavery be abolished,
especially in DC, where Congress did have the authority. The House of
Representatives went through a lengthy argument over the issue of whether
these petitions could even be =heard=. The essential nature of the
Southern argument was that any criticism of slavery should not be allowed
to be heard. Former President John Quincy Adams, now a Congressman from
Massachusetts, was a prominent figure in the Gag Rule conroversy.

paul rodi

unread,
Aug 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/8/96
to

char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>In article <4ub1bh$d...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,

>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>According to Webster's dictionary a treaty is "an agreement between
>>states; a pact". So, yes the constitution was a treaty. It was signed by
>>all the states in the form of ratification. It was a "pact" between the
>>government and the state of South Carolina.
>
>And again I ask: Who signed this pact on behalf of the government?
>No one.
>
The president when, in his oath of office, he swears to "uphold, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States".

><snip>


>
>>The "treaty" also contained no provision for one party NOT to declare it
>>null and void.
>
>And is it customary for treaties to contain an implicit provision allowing
>for their own violation? In such a case, why bother with treaties?
>
Why can you, as a unionist, say that it contains an implicit provision
that it can not be broken, but I as a secessionist, can not say that it
contains an implicit provision that it can be broken?

The United States government has broken treaties whenever it suited it's

own needs. Just ask the Cheyenne, or the Sioux, or the Apache, Cherokee,
etc.

>>That question was not answered fully until Appomattox. In

If the Federal government, as the enforcer of the treaty, does nothing to
resolve these disputes between the state governments, then it is guilty of
not "providing for domestic tranquility" as it pledges to do in the
preamble to the constitution.

>Other arguments about "treaty violations" were more forced. Here's


>one: Lincoln's election was a violation of the Constitution because
>some Northern states allowed blacks to vote. Instead of setting
>aside the black votes, the entire electoral votes of any state which permitted
>black voting should be set aside. Good argument?
>
So, what you're saying here is states rights is a valid position when it
applies to the North, but it's not a valid position when it applies to the
South.

>Many Southerners zestfully advocated violating the spirit and/or letter


>of certain provisions of the "treaty" when necessary to protect their
>interests -- Art. IV. Sec. 3 para 2, Art. VI para 2, and Art. I of the
>Amendments to the "treaty" all come to mind. The assertion, therefore, that
>the "treaty" was null and void because of Northern violations smacks of a
>certain amount of chutzpah. The assertion that the treaty could be
>declared null and void by one of the parties to it, even if it had not
>been violated by any of the other parties, is an argument of quite a
>different order from one based on a claim of violations.
>
><snip>
>
>>The German government would require a treaty if Bavaria is a foreign
>>country. In South Carolina's eyes, she was a foreign government and was
>>within her rights to request that the government in Washington vacate Fort
>>Sumter. When those requests were ignored, she did what any sovereign would
>>have done.
>

>Does Bavaria have a right, under German law, to consider itself a foreign
>country "in its eyes"?
>
>- Gary Charbonneau

Not knowing German law I can't say definitively. I will say this, South
Carolina and the rest of the Confederate States, after petioning the
government for "redress of grievances", and finding that those petitions
fell on deaf ears, called a convention of her PEOPLE and that convention

voted to break away and establish their own government. They had no desire

to overthrow the government of the United States and impose their will on

the Northern states. Yet that's exactly what the Northern states did to
the South.


efr...@cc.memphis.edu

unread,
Aug 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/8/96
to


New hand Paul Rodi asked:

>>So, what you're saying here is states rights is a valid position when it
>>applies to the North, but it's not a valid position when it applies to the
>>South.

And old hand Gary Charbonneau replied:

> Nope. I'm saying:
>
> (1) That Southerners were inconsistent advocates of states rights. They
> generally had no problem with Taney's _obiter_, in _Dred Scott_, that a
> state had no right to allow citizenship to blacks. A reasonable reading
> reading of the Constitution suggests that it gives states the rights to
> determine their own citizenship requirements. I'm also saying:
>
> (2) That it is particularly egregious to make the argument that, if
> _one_ black were allowed to vote in a Northern state, the ballots
> of hundreds of thousands of white voters in the same state should be
> disregarded. Why not simply disregard the one black vote?

I can see it now, the exclusion of votes because one
of the voters had a single drop of "black" blood.

Ed "must be powerful stuff" Frank

paul rodi

unread,
Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96
to

char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>In article <4ud41n$s...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) wrote:
>
>>>And again I ask: Who signed this pact on behalf of the government?
>>>No one.
>>>
>>The president when, in his oath of office, he swears to "uphold, protect
>>and defend the Constitution of the United States".
>
>That's an answer, only not an answer to the question being put to you. Who
>signed the Constitution on behalf of the United States?
>
>And if you are arguing that secession was justified because Lincoln
>had violated his oath of office, let me remind you (just one more time,
>if I might) that seven states seceded before Lincoln ever took
>that oath.
>
If as you say, no one signed on behalf of the government, then the
Constitution was an agreement between each of the states and as such, 1, 2
,or 11 could leave to form their own new agreement. Then the Federal
Government had no right to try by force of arms to force those states
wishing to leave back into the Union. And yes I know that those states
seceded before Lincoln's inauguration.

>>>>The "treaty" also contained no provision for one party NOT to declare it
>>>>null and void.
>>>
>>>And is it customary for treaties to contain an implicit provision allowing
>>>for their own violation? In such a case, why bother with treaties?
>>>
>>Why can you, as a unionist, say that it contains an implicit provision
>>that it can not be broken, but I as a secessionist, can not say that it
>>contains an implicit provision that it can be broken?
>
>Because then it would be extremely silly to justify secession on the grounds
>that it had been broken. It contains an implicit provision
>that it may be broken, right? And why bother with all this stuff about
>the president swearing to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution?
>The Constitution contains an implicit provision that he may violate
>the Constitution, correct? Or is this an implicit right reserved to
>states only?
>

There never was an implicit right to violate the Constitution, but, there
was an implicit right for one party to be able to leave if they felt
strongly enough that they had been wronged. That was not a violation of
the Constitution.

>>The United States government has broken treaties whenever it suited it's

>>own needs. Just ask the Cheyenne, or the Sioux, or the Apache, Cherokee,
>>etc.
>
>But those treaties, like all treaties, contained implicit provisions that
>they could be broken, right? Or is your argument that the Southern
>states could secede because the government had violated treaties with
>the Indians? Strange argument....
>

No, not all treaties have implicit provisions that they may be broken. I
have never said that. What I have said is there was no implicit provision
that one or any of the states could not leave the union if they felt they
had strong enough grounds.

><snip>
>
>>If the Federal government, as the enforcer of the treaty, does nothing to
>>resolve these disputes between the state governments, then it is guilty of
>>not "providing for domestic tranquility" as it pledges to do in the
>>preamble to the constitution.
>
>The argument does nothing to buttress your case. I think you have just
>allowed the Federal government's right to resolve that dispute between the
>Northern and Southern states known by some as the "Civil War."
>

In the Constitution the right to resolve differences between the states is
with the Supreme Court, not by armed invasion.

>>>Other arguments about "treaty violations" were more forced. Here's


>>>one: Lincoln's election was a violation of the Constitution because
>>>some Northern states allowed blacks to vote. Instead of setting
>>>aside the black votes, the entire electoral votes of any state which
>>>permitted black voting should be set aside. Good argument?
>>>
>>So, what you're saying here is states rights is a valid position when it
>>applies to the North, but it's not a valid position when it applies to the
>>South.
>
>Nope. I'm saying:
>
>(1) That Southerners were inconsistent advocates of states rights. They
>generally had no problem with Taney's _obiter_, in _Dred Scott_, that a
>state had no right to allow citizenship to blacks. A reasonable reading
>reading of the Constitution suggests that it gives states the rights to
>determine their own citizenship requirements. I'm also saying:
>
>(2) That it is particularly egregious to make the argument that, if
>_one_ black were allowed to vote in a Northern state, the ballots
>of hundreds of thousands of white voters in the same state should be
>disregarded. Why not simply disregard the one black vote?
>

OK, here we agree. Throw out the questionable votes. But given the
passions of the times(and still today given the discussions in this
group)is it not reasonable for the South to have thought, if they cheated
on those votes, how many others are fraudulent?

><snip>


>
>>>Does Bavaria have a right, under German law, to consider itself a foreign
>>>country "in its eyes"?
>>>
>>>- Gary Charbonneau
>>
>>Not knowing German law I can't say definitively. I will say this, South
>>Carolina and the rest of the Confederate States, after petioning the
>>government for "redress of grievances", and finding that those petitions
>>fell on deaf ears, called a convention of her PEOPLE and that convention
>>voted to break away and establish their own government.
>
>Now that you've said that, explain to me why the government any longer
>had to pay any attention to petitions for redress of grievances? Didn't
>the Gag Rule, instituted at the behest of Southerners in violation
>of the spirit of the First Amendment, constitute a precedent that
>petitions for redress of grievances could in the future be disregarded
>without consideration by the government?
>

I have checked through all the books I have and can find no reference to
the Gag Rule. Admittedly, the large part of my collection is on the
military aspects of the war. I would appreciate some titles (balanced
points of view) so that I can discuss this knowledgeably.

>>They had no desire

>>to overthrow the government of the United States and impose their will on
>>the Northern states.
>
>No? Then why did they threaten to secede if Lincoln were elected? Wasn't
>that political blackmail designed precisely to "impose their will on
>the Northern states"? Why did a few of the more outre secessionists
>make the silly argument that Northern votes for Lincoln should be set aside
>in order to allow Breckinridge (who had garnered only half of Lincoln's
>popular vote) to claim victory? Was this not also a claim of a right to
>"impose their will on the Northern states"? Why did the conditional
>Unionists draw up lists of non-negotiable demands and state that, if those
>demands were not met, the South would secede? Was this not also designed to
>"impose their will on the Northern states"?
>

The South never threatened to secede in order to impose its will on the
North. They simply stated a fact, if Lincoln is elected we will leave and
form our own government and there will be no more conflict between us. We
will live our lives our way, and you may live yours your way. All we wish
is to be left alone.

Yes, there were hotheads who made rash statements, on both sides. Again,
given the passions of the times this is to be expected.

>>Yet that's exactly what the Northern states did to
>>the South.
>
>You see? The two of us _can_ agree on something after all.
>
>- Gary Charbonneau

Right, we can argue this till Doomsday and neither of us will ever change.

Paul "noyankee" Rodi


Brian Blakistone

unread,
Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96
to

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:

>No state government ratified the Constitution. Conventions of the people
>within the various states ratified the document. This was purposely done by
>the Founding Fathers to exclude state governments from the process as much as
>possible, and it significance was not lost on the antifederalists, who saw the
>phrase "we the people" as a direct rebuff against the notion of a compact of
>sovereign states. Sam Adams and Patrick Henry had notable quotes on this
>subject, which my memory cannot, alas, reproduce.

Oddly, I ran across this just the other day:

"Mr. Chairman... I rose yesterday to ask a question, I thought the
meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and
America depend on this: Have they said, we the States? Have they made
a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a
confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government.
The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing--the expression,
We, _the people_, instead of, _the States of America_. I need not
take much pains to show, that the principles of this system , are
extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy,
like England-- a compact between Prince and people; with checks on the
former, to secure the liberty of the latter? is this a Confederacy,
like Holland--an association of a number of independent States, each
of which retain its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy,
wherein the people retain all their rights securely, Had these
principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this
alarming transition, from a Confederacy to a consolidated Government."

Patrick Henry, June 5, 1788

Brian


paul rodi

unread,
Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96
to

"James F. Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu> wrote:
>
>[I have changed the thread header to remove Mark's name and reflect the
>subject matter]
>
>On 9 Aug 1996, paul rodi wrote:
>
>[snips]
>
>> There never was an implicit right to violate the Constitution, but, there
>> was an implicit right for one party to be able to leave if they felt
>> strongly enough that they had been wronged. That was not a violation of
>> the Constitution.
>
>In your opinion. In Mr. Madison's opinion (he wrote the document,
>remember) it would have been.
>
Yes, in my opinion, based on what I've read about the debates of the day.
However you and I are discussing this with 20/20 hindsight. At the time,
there wasn't a definitive answer as to whether a state could or could not
secede.

>[snips]


>
>> In the Constitution the right to resolve differences between the states is
>> with the Supreme Court, not by armed invasion.
>

>Good point. Why didn't the secessionist use this avenue instead of
>taking a path that they had good reason to believe would lead to war?
>Lincoln did not resort to armed invasion until the United States flag had
>been fired upon for a second time.
>

For the same reason the unionists didn't. By the time of Lincoln's
election both sides had gotten to the point where reason was not an
option. After years of feeling as though they had been mistreated by their
Northern brothers, the South said "Enough, we are leaving. Leave us alone
or we will defend ourselves." The North feeling strong from years of
growing population and industry said" You are not allowed to leave. If you
try, we will force you back at gunpoint." Neither side could or would back
down.

>[snips]


>
>> OK, here we agree. Throw out the questionable votes. But given the
>> passions of the times(and still today given the discussions in this
>> group)is it not reasonable for the South to have thought, if they cheated
>> on those votes, how many others are fraudulent?
>

>So allowing blacks to vote is "cheating"? That is what Gary is talking
>about here: Some of the states complained that Lincoln was elected by
>letting blacks vote, ergo his election was somehow illegal or immoral.
>

In the context of the times, there was no decision as to whether allowing
blacks to vote was permitted. The Constitution was vague on this, just as
it was vague on whether secession was permitted.

>[snips]


>
>> I have checked through all the books I have and can find no reference to
>> the Gag Rule. Admittedly, the large part of my collection is on the
>> military aspects of the war. I would appreciate some titles (balanced
>> points of view) so that I can discuss this knowledgeably.
>

>A recent book is ARGUING ABOUT SLAVERY. In brief, the Gag Rule
>controversy came up in the 1830's, when several Northern (Massachusetts?)
>groups sent petitions to Congress asking that slavery be abolished,
>especially in DC, where Congress did have the authority. The House of
>Representatives went through a lengthy argument over the issue of whether
>these petitions could even be =heard=. The essential nature of the
>Southern argument was that any criticism of slavery should not be allowed
>to be heard. Former President John Quincy Adams, now a Congressman from
>Massachusetts, was a prominent figure in the Gag Rule conroversy.
>

Thank you for the book suggestion. I'll see if it's available at the
library or the bookstore.

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96
to

In article <4ue03v$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,

Fire-eating Southerners so frequently threatened to secede in order to impose
their will on the North that many people in 1860 viewed the latest fusillade of
such threats as yet another bluff, to their own detriment.

It is a myth, by the way, the all the South wished was "to be left alone."

gary charbonneau

unread,
Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96
to

In article <4ucpge$l...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

Mark T Pitcavage <mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:

>No state government ratified the Constitution. Conventions of the people
>within the various states ratified the document. This was purposely done by
>the Founding Fathers to exclude state governments from the process as much as
>possible, and it significance was not lost on the antifederalists, who saw
>the phrase "we the people" as a direct rebuff against the notion of a
>compact of sovereign states. Sam Adams and Patrick Henry had notable
>quotes on this subject, which my memory cannot, alas, reproduce.

Another reason why state legislatures were excluded from the ratification
process was because -- it was said -- whatever a state legislature could
do, it could undo. In other words, ratification by a state legislature
would give that legislature the right to "unratify" at some later point,
and thus leave the Union.

The specifics of the argument are not very compelling. It is not clear
why, if ratification is carried out by state conventions (but not
legislatures), subsequent state conventions (but not legislatures) could not
unratify. The argument does, however, shed light on the original intent of
the Founding Fathers regarding the notion of a secession right. There
is a strong implication that they wished to avoid the creation of such a right.

- Gary Charbonneau

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96
to

In article <4ufefq$h...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,

If we are to leave the realm of theory and go to the actual -reason- why state
legislatures were excluded, the answer is almost certainly the simple fact that
the framers thought state legislatures much less likely to ratify the
constitution than conventions.

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96
to

In article <4ufh21$5...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) wrote:

>>In article <4ue03v$8...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>paul rodi <noya...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>The South never threatened to secede in order to impose its will on the
>>>North. They simply stated a fact, if Lincoln is elected we will leave and
>>>form our own government and there will be no more conflict between us. We
>>>will live our lives our way, and you may live yours your way. All we wish
>>>is to be left alone.
>>

>>Fire-eating Southerners so frequently threatened to secede in order to impose
>>their will on the North that many people in 1860 viewed the latest fusillade
>>of such threats as yet another bluff, to their own detriment.
>>

>And how did they impose their will on the north?

How does blackmail always work?


>>It is a myth, by the way, the all the South wished was "to be left alone."
>>

>Did the South want to conquer the North? NO. Did the South want to force
>it's way of life on the North? NO. If it's a myth that all the South
>wanted was to be left alone, then what did they want?

The South not only wanted the American southwest, it also wanted much of the
Caribbean and Latin America. Perhaps you are unaware that one of the first
actions of the Confederacy was to invade the United States territory of New
Mexico; this hardly sounds as if the South merely wanted to be "left alone."