Lincoln's War

[Doug]

Kevin: Of course slavery would have lasted longer had the South not seceded. An irony of history.

I cannot comment on the "right" to secede, because I don't know what a "right" is.

But I will say that I think it is unwise of any state to simply offer any of its component parts, the right to secede if a majority wants it, regardless of time, place and circumstances.

As a rough rule of thumb, I would say: if the seccession of an area would not result in a grave strategic danger to a state; and if the inhabitants of an area, via repeated, convincingly large, votes, demonstrate a wish to leave ... then I would probably support their right to leave.

Thank God it didn't happen to us. We would probably have split up into a half dozen smaller republics, sort of like Latin America, and would have ended up being German or Russian or Japanese colonies in the 20th Century. Thank God the world's most powerful nation is also a liberal democracy.

Please note that the Confederacy did not allow any of its component parts to secede: in a dangerous world, that would be a very dangerous right to offer too promiscuously.

If we someday have a nice peaceful prosperous world of disarmed liberal democracies -- sort of like Europe is today -- then, sure, to hell with it. Everybody cut loose. Not yet.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin: Of course slavery would have lasted longer had the South not seceded. An irony of history.

I cannot comment on the "right" to secede, because I don't know what a "right" is.

But I will say that I think it is unwise of any state to simply offer any of its component parts, the right to secede if a majority wants it, regardless of time, place and circumstances.

As a rough rule of thumb, I would say: if the seccession of an area would not result in a grave strategic danger to a state; and if the inhabitants of an area, via repeated, convincingly large, votes, demonstrate a wish to leave ... then I would probably support their right to leave.

Thank God it didn't happen to us. We would probably have split up into a half dozen smaller republics, sort of like Latin America, and would have ended up being German or Russian or Japanese colonies in the 20th Century. Thank God the world's most powerful nation is also a liberal democracy.

Please note that the Confederacy did not allow any of its component parts to secede: in a dangerous world, that would be a very dangerous right to offer too promiscuously.

If we someday have a nice peaceful prosperous world of disarmed liberal democracies -- sort of like Europe is today -- then, sure, to hell with it. Everybody cut loose. Not yet.

I am not advocating that any state should secede, I am simply saying that the right to secede exists because it is not prohibited in the Constitution.

Where do you get the information that the Confederacy did not allow secession? I wasn't aware that the issue was even addressed considering their short span as a union.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And you would be wrong. The Union was intended to be permanent. It is Permanent. A State can only leave if it gets the permission of the other States. The Constitution does not address it cause no one thought it would need to be addressed.

You want out without permission? Then it is revolution and if you lose you do not get to leave. The United States owned all the property outside the original 13 colonies, every State since then has been given the land by the Federal Government, they have no right to simply leave ( well Texas is an exception, but they joined and now can not leave with out permission)

As for legal, a Supreme Court decision in 1869 settled the matter and the precedent of the Civil war and the previous rebellions settled the matter. You are aware Washington as President lead an Army into Pennsylvania to put down one rebellion?

Remind which two States never joined the US under the Constitution, sure looks to me like all 13 of the Original Colonies are States.

 

[PeterS]

I am once again going to argue that the Civil War, or more accurately the War Between the States, was not fought over the issue of slavery. I don’t expect to change anybody’s mind, but hopefully this won’t be dismissed outright. I believe that the war between the states was fought over tariffs, as I’ve said before.

Kevin, the south would have never become a plantation economy without slavery and it was the economic split between an industrialized north and plantation south that led to protectionist tariffs. What I personally find interesting is that it was Hamilton in 1789 who first proposed using protectionist tariffs to promote industrialization so the “cause” [according to Kevin] of the civil war was initiated at conception of this country. Further, the succession movement [according to actual history] in the south was started in the same year as a response to the abolitionist movement initiated in Pennsylvania.

What I would like to know is that if southern threats to secede in 1789 were caused by abolition, and not tariffs, what changed that the same types of tariffs would now be the cause of succession in 1861 and not a far, far stronger abolition movement?

Kevin, your view is that of one through a key hole and until you open the door and actually look outside you will never see what really occurred...

 

[PeterS]

I'm not rewriting history, I'm simply looking at the facts. You are blatantly ignoring facts that say that slavery was not the only reason that the south left the Union.

Slavery was at the center. You are looking at one spoke of a wheel and ignoring what it, and all the other spokes, is connected to.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And you would be wrong. The Union was intended to be permanent. It is Permanent. A State can only leave if it gets the permission of the other States. The Constitution does not address it cause no one thought it would need to be addressed.

You want out without permission? Then it is revolution and if you lose you do not get to leave. The United States owned all the property outside the original 13 colonies, every State since then has been given the land by the Federal Government, they have no right to simply leave ( well Texas is an exception, but they joined and now can not leave with out permission)

As for legal, a Supreme Court decision in 1869 settled the matter and the precedent of the Civil war and the previous rebellions settled the matter. You are aware Washington as President lead an Army into Pennsylvania to put down one rebellion?

Remind which two States never joined the US under the Constitution, sure looks to me like all 13 of the Original Colonies are States.

The Constitution doesn't address secession because the founders did not want the federal government to be able to stop a state from leaving. They saw the Union as the tool of the free and independent states. To have the power to stop the states from leaving would make the states powerless against an all-powerful federal government. The Constitution also does not prohibit the states from seceding. And it most certainly does not say anything about getting 75% of the other states to give another state permission to leave, so you're basically just making that up.

When those government owned territories became states the federal government released any claims of ownership over them and turned the territories over to the state governments and the people.

When the Supreme Court makes a decision that goes against the Constitution it is void and no force, to use the words of Thomas Jefferson. The Supreme Court is part of the federal government, and is therefore as constrained by the Constitution as any other branch. They can't simply make up whatever they want and call it "Constitutional."

North Carolina and Rhode Island did not immediately ratify the Constitution and remained independent nations until they did so.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, the south would have never become a plantation economy without slavery and it was the economic split between an industrialized north and plantation south that led to protectionist tariffs. What I personally find interesting is that it was Hamilton in 1789 who first proposed using protectionist tariffs to promote industrialization so the “cause” [according to Kevin] of the civil war was initiated at conception of this country. Further, the succession movement [according to actual history] in the south was started in the same year as a response to the abolitionist movement initiated in Pennsylvania.

What I would like to know is that if southern threats to secede in 1789 were caused by abolition, and not tariffs, what changed that the same types of tariffs would now be the cause of succession in 1861 and not a far, far stronger abolition movement?

Kevin, your view is that of one through a key hole and until you open the door and actually look outside you will never see what really occurred...

I have already conceded that slavery was a cause of the south's choice to secede.

 

[Doug]

Kevin: On the attitude of the Confederates towards seccession from the Confederacy, have a look at this.

 

[PeterS]

The Constitution doesn't address secession because the founders did not want the federal government to be able to stop a state from leaving. They saw the Union as the tool of the free and independent states.

Bull. If I want to be a free and independent person would I form a union with you, write a constitution, and create a federal government? If the intent was to be free and independent states there never would have been a constitution nor a federal government but instead we would have remained independent republics with a common treaty governing commerce and security. We loose freedom through a union not the other way around.

And I do love the way you argue the mind of the founders all while ignoring what they actually did. Its as if you regard thoughts and deeds as two different things...

 

[PeterS]

I have already conceded that slavery was a cause of the south's choice to secede.

Slavery was at the center of all causes. The civil war was as much a war against economic systems as anything else. It was capitalism vs agrarianism and agrarianism would never have been a viable economic system capable of rivaling capitalism without forced labor. Take away slave labor and plantations become subsistence farms, just as they were in the north, and not an industry all its own. Northern farmers faced the same tariffs but tariffs were largely moot because surpluses too small for export but instead just large enough for regional demand. This would have been just as true in the south without slave labor creating a surplus large enough for export.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Bull. If I want to be a free and independent person would I form a union with you, write a constitution, and create a federal government? If the intent was to be free and independent states there never would have been a constitution nor a federal government but instead we would have remained independent republics with a common treaty governing commerce and security. We loose freedom through a union not the other way around.

And I do love the way you argue the mind of the founders all while ignoring what they actually did. Its as if you regard thoughts and deeds as two different things...

Well then please enlighten me as to what they actually did, since you seem to have some kind of inside information that I am not privy to. As I recall the founders created a federalized system of checks and balances with a strong emphasis on states' rights. They didn't want an all-powerful federal government because they knew, from experience, that government is not to be trusted to protect the liberty of the people.

Did all of the founders want limited government? No, of course not. Alexander Hamilton, for example, favored a strong national government. It was in the tradition of Hamilton that Lincoln destroyed states' rights, ignored the Constitution, and waged a war to force people to pay their tribute to the government.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Slavery was at the center of all causes. The civil war was as much a war against economic systems as anything else. It was capitalism vs agrarianism and agrarianism would never have been a viable economic system capable of rivaling capitalism without forced labor. Take away slave labor and plantations become subsistence farms, just as they were in the north, and not an industry all its own. Northern farmers faced the same tariffs but tariffs were largely moot because surpluses too small for export but instead just large enough for regional demand. This would have been just as true in the south without slave labor creating a surplus large enough for export.

I am well aware of the economic differences between the north and south, and I am aware that tariffs benefitted the industrial north while they hurt the agricultural south. It's the reason that Lincoln was able to win the Presidency with absolutely no support in the southern states. He essentially ran on a platform of tariffs by supporting Henry Clay's "American System," and pronouncing himself an "old Henry Clay Whig." He was wildly popular in states that saw benefits from protectionism such as Pennsylvania.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are aware Washington as President lead an Army into Pennsylvania to put down one rebellion?

I must have missed this in my original response to this post, and I want to make a point. You are referring to the Whiskey Rebellion, which was indeed put down by Washington and his army. However, it was Alexander Hamilton who wanted to forcefully put down the insurrection and hang every person that took part in it.

What was the abominable offense that these people committed in their rebellion? They didn't pay the taxes that Hamilton had imposed on whiskey. This just furthers my point about how the federal government will use violence to force the American citizens to pay their tribute to them. Lincoln waged the Civil War not to end slavery, not to "save the union," but to force the southern states back into the fold so that they could pay their taxes and tariffs. The same way that Hamilton forced the people of Pennsylvania to pay their taxes or suffer the consequences.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin: On the attitude of the Confederates towards seccession from the Confederacy, have a look at this.

That is very interesting, and thank you for supplying that information. A county trying to secede would be more of a state issue than a federal issue, though the raids from the Confederate army certainly seem to suggest that the Confederate government would not have stood idle if they had officially tried to secede.

 

[editec]

They would have been allowed to keep slavery had they stayed in the Union, because Lincoln did not support emancipating the slaves. So if slavery was the issue it would have made more sense to stay within the Union. Since the issue was tariffs, and Lincoln ran on a platform of more and higher tariffs, the south seceded.

Are you suggesting that the government imposed tariffs on the south because of slavery?

I didn't know that, KK.

What new or much higher tariffs were at issue that set off the secessionist sentiments?

American government had tariffs from the get go.

The Federal government was mostly funded by tariffs all along.

So, if your theory is correct, there must have been some truly radical change in the tariff landscape to suddently make the secessionists so upset.

What was it?

 

[editec]

I am not advocating that any state should secede, I am simply saying that the right to secede exists because it is not prohibited in the Constitution.

The counter agurment to that theory is this:

If the framers thought that the rights had the right to secede, they might have mentioned the steps to that process, don't you think?

And since in the Federalist papers the framers refer to the Union as somehting being made "in perpetutity", (and this phrase is used more than once) I do NOT THINK that the Floundering Fathers actually thought that secession was a "right" of any of the states, either.

Where do you get the information that the Confederacy did not allow secession? I wasn't aware that the issue was even addressed considering their short span as a union.

Interesting question.

Here's the constititution of the CSA.

Note how often in this Article, they mention slavery. This would of course, be that same institution slavery that the apologists of treason claim had nothing whatever to so with slavery, of course.

Article 4.

- The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
2. A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime against the laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.
3. No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried 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 slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Section 3 - New States

1. Other States may be admitted into this Confederacy by a vote of two- thirds of the whole House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by States; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress.
2. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations concerning the property of the Confederate States, including the lands thereof.
3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
4. The Confederate States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, 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 is not in session) against domestic violence.

But note, if you will, SECTION 3, subsection 2?

2. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations concerning the property of the Confederate States, including the lands thereof.

Looks to me like the CSA, and NOT the state has the right to decide what happens to all the STATE lands.

Now if a STATE decided that they wanted to secede, that would mean they were deciding about " the lands thereof" wouldn't it?

But it CLEARLY states that the CONGRESS of the CSA has the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY to make that decision.

Looks to me like the CSA would no more have stood passively by when a STATE seceded than the UNION did.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I didn't know that, KK.

What new or much higher tariffs were at issue that set off the secessionist sentiments?

American government had tariffs from the get go.

The Federal government was mostly funded by tariffs all along.

So, if your theory is correct, there must have been some truly radical change in the tariff landscape to suddently make the secessionists so upset.

What was it?

The Morrill Tariff, which would raise the tariff rate considerably, had already passed the House of Representatives, and Abraham Lincoln was a strong supporter of tariffs.

Morrill Tariff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This goes into great detail of the subject. The section entitled The Morrill Tariff and the Secession Movement is particularly interesting.

"And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures." - Robert Barnwell Rhett, Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States

 

[Doug]

Editec: Kevin has already conceded the point about tariffs not being the main issue, I think.

We can set ourselves the following thought experiment, although of course no absolutely certain conclusions may be drawn from it: suppose the Federal Government had offered the South complete control of tariff policy, in return for the aboliton of slavery. Would the South still have seceded, or would they have remained? Or, on contrariwise, suppose they had said, tariffs remain, but we will absolutely guarantee you that slavery will exist as long as you like? Would they have left then? (You may argue, that is more or less what was on offer. But the point is, the South didn't believe that slavery was secure in a growing Union where the new states would mainly be free states, thus diluting its power in Congress.)

Kevin: Yes, letting a county secede is not the same as letting a state secede. But the principle is the same: it weakens your state to allow this, especially in time of war, so it's not really going to be done. It implies that the minority need not accept the decisions of the majority, if the minority is collected together in one geographical area. I don't have a "principled" position on this one way or the other, by the way. If all the people I don't like in the United States, or Britain, could be assembled together in one place, then I wouldn't mind at all if they seceded, and we could deny them visas when they tried to return.

 

[PeterS]

I am well aware of the economic differences between the north and south, and I am aware that tariffs benefitted the industrial north while they hurt the agricultural south. It's the reason that Lincoln was able to win the Presidency with absolutely no support in the southern states. He essentially ran on a platform of tariffs by supporting Henry Clay's "American System," and pronouncing himself an "old Henry Clay Whig." He was wildly popular in states that saw benefits from protectionism such as Pennsylvania.

Tariffs were designed to benefit industrialization. If the southern states had chose to industrialize they would have received the same benefit. Hamilton was our original capitalist and he saw tariffs as a means of promoting a certain economic system. Tariffs targeted a type of economic system not a region specific. Tariffs impacted the south only because the south chose an agrarian economic system. They would not have made this choice though without slave labor. It was slavery that made agrarianism a viable economic system.

The "American System" Kevin was free-market capitalism and was the center point of the Federalist movement and what anti-federalists fought against. Ironic, don't you think...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The counter agurment to that theory is this:

If the framers thought that the rights had the right to secede, they might have mentioned the steps to that process, don't you think?

And since in the Federalist papers the framers refer to the Union as somehting being made "in perpetutity", (and this phrase is used more than once) I do NOT THINK that the Floundering Fathers actually thought that secession was a "right" of any of the states, either.

The Federalist Papers do refer to perpetuity, and Alexander Hamilton would have probably done the exact same thing as Lincoln. They certainly believed that the federal government should have total control over the states. Thomas Jefferson, however, would not have agreed and argued very eloquently for states' rights in his Kentucky Resolution of 1798.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Interesting question.

Here's the constititution of the CSA.

Note how often in this Article, they mention slavery. This would of course, be that same institution slavery that the apologists of treason claim had nothing whatever to so with slavery, of course.

Well the fact that the Confederates practiced slavery and tried to protect slavery in their Constitution is no surprise to anyone I think. However, I have also conceded the point that slavery was a reason that the south seceded. I will not, however, concede that tariffs were not also a major reason that the south seceded.

But note, if you will, SECTION 3, subsection 2?

Looks to me like the CSA, and NOT the state has the right to decide what happens to all the STATE lands.

Now if a STATE decided that they wanted to secede, that would mean they were deciding about " the lands thereof" wouldn't it?

But it CLEARLY states that the CONGRESS of the CSA has the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY to make that decision.

Looks to me like the CSA would no more have stood passively by when a STATE seceded than the UNION did.

Had a Confederate state tried to secede from the Confederacy the Confederate Constitution would no longer apply and the Confederate Congress would no longer have the authority to regulate the lands thereof. The people and state governments did not turn over ownership of their states to the new federal government when they joined the Confederacy.