Southern history and the truth

[manifold]

Because there was no law prohibiting the states' secession, they were perfectly legal in doing so.

In fact, most constitutional scholars agree that the Founding Fathers believed that the whole union of sovereign states experiment could only work if the states did in fact retain the right to secede. The ultimate ace up their sleeve should the central government grow too large and abuse it's power.

 

[BrianH]

Because there was no law prohibiting the states' secession, they were perfectly legal in doing so.

There also is no law saying the USA can't invade and conquer another country.

True enough, but that's not what the argument is about. Some people view the South as a bunch of traitorous rebels revolting against the U.S. government, and were not justified in their actions. Legally, they were justified in their actions. The Civil War has been used to brainwash people into thinking the war was all about freeing the slaves and doing good for man-kind, and that everyone in the South were big bad slave owners who whooped and beat the slaves, when in reality, there was a small percentage of southerners who owned slaves...and an extremely small percentage of the pop. that were large plantation owners. You know, the North has always chastized the treatment of slaves by the South, while ignoring their treatment of the Native Indians as well as thousands of immigrants who were forced into serving for the Union as soon as they stepped off of the boat. Neither side was the valiant and noble side.

 

[Ravi]

True enough, but that's not what the argument is about. Some people view the South as a bunch of traitorous rebels revolting against the U.S. government, and were not justified in their actions. Legally, they were justified in their actions. The Civil War has been used to brainwash people into thinking the war was all about freeing the slaves and doing good for man-kind, and that everyone in the South were big bad slave owners who whooped and beat the slaves, when in reality, there was a small percentage of southerners who owned slaves...and an extremely small percentage of the pop. that were large plantation owners. You know, the North has always chastized the treatment of slaves by the South, while ignoring their treatment of the Native Indians as well as thousands of immigrants who were forced into serving for the Union as soon as they stepped off of the boat. Neither side was the valiant and noble side.

For the record, I've never thought of the South as a bunch of traitorous rebels. I just thought they wanted to enslave people. In fact, I'm sure they did want to do just that.

 

[BrianH]

In fact, most constitutional scholars agree that the Founding Fathers believed that the whole union of sovereign states experiment could only work if the states did in fact retain the right to secede. The ultimate ace up their sleeve should the central government grow too large and abuse it's power.

Well yeah. That's why the the DOI speaks of "free and independent states."

It was the idea that states could join and leave freely based on a majority decision of that state.

 

[BrianH]

For the record, I've never thought of the South as a bunch of traitorous rebels. I just thought they wanted to enslave people. In fact, I'm sure they did want to do just that.

Fair enough, but it was not just the South. There were UNion territories that permitted slavery also: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona.

Your right, they're intention was to keep slavery legal. But slavery was an underlying issue. The South didn't say, "We want to keep our slaves, so we're going to revolt so we can keep beatin the slaves!" They believed the decisions made by the North were oppressive to their way-of-life and that they had no representation in the government. And the way things were going, they would have none in the near future. But on the flip-side, the North expected an enormous amount of money owed to them, but were trying to restrict the means in which they were to acquire that money. A means in which both sides viewed legal at the time. That would be like telling the North that they could not use industrialized means to produce goods.

 

[Ravi]

Yep. But industrialized means aren't exactly considered a bad thing like slave keeping is.

I don't especially think they just wanted to keep beating their slaves, either. Honestly, if they treated them like royalty the fact is the slaves didn't have any choice in the matter. Making money off of slavery is what they wanted to keep doing.

 

[BrianH]

Yep. But industrialized means aren't exactly considered a bad thing like slave keeping is.

I don't especially think they just wanted to keep beating their slaves, either. Honestly, if they treated them like royalty the fact is the slaves didn't have any choice in the matter. Making money off of slavery is what they wanted to keep doing.

Well I guess if you suppose working children to the bone in 15 hour a day job at a textile mill, and other industrialized plants...good things.

I'm not saying slavery is right...but the North had done just as many thing to not be proud of. And continued doing them even after the Civil War. The North, wanting to expand their empire, should have helped come up with a better solution for solving the Southern economic crisis. The problem with the Civil War, is that it was before the industrial revolution. Slavery would have eventually ended as new methods of farming made it easier to harvest crops.

 

[Toro]

Well I guess if you suppose working children to the bone in 15 hour a day job at a textile mill, and other industrialized plants...good things.

I'm not saying slavery is right...but the North had done just as many thing to not be proud of. And continued doing them even after the Civil War. The North, wanting to expand their empire, should have helped come up with a better solution for solving the Southern economic crisis. The problem with the Civil War, is that it was before the industrial revolution. Slavery would have eventually ended as new methods of farming made it easier to harvest crops.

The industrial revolution occurred before the Civil War.

 

[BrianH]

The industrial revolution occurred before the Civil War.

I know...did I say it was after? I was talking about the fact that the North also abused people/children/immigrants in their economic system as well; leading up to the Civil War. And besides this, the majority of the industiralization was in the North, while the South remained poor.

"The First Industrial Revolution merged into the Second Industrial Revolution around 1850, when technological and economic progress gained momentum with the development of steam-powered ships, railways, and later in the nineteenth century with the internal combustion engine and electrical power generation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution

 

[Ravi]

Well I guess if you suppose working children to the bone in 15 hour a day job at a textile mill, and other industrialized plants...good things.

I'm not saying slavery is right...but the North had done just as many thing to not be proud of. And continued doing them even after the Civil War. The North, wanting to expand their empire, should have helped come up with a better solution for solving the Southern economic crisis. The problem with the Civil War, is that it was before the industrial revolution. Slavery would have eventually ended as new methods of farming made it easier to harvest crops.

I'm not for that either. But at least there was an element of choice.

We've done a lot of stupid things as a country so I can't really see making excuses for one as a way for validating another.

At the same time, I like moving forward instead of crying about the past.

But your point about slavery ending...it hasn't ended yet. Just the players and scale have changed.

 

[BrianH]

I'm not for that either. But at least there was an element of choice.

We've done a lot of stupid things as a country so I can't really see making excuses for one as a way for validating another.

At the same time, I like moving forward instead of crying about the past.

But your point about slavery ending...it hasn't ended yet. Just the players and scale have changed.

I would agree completely.

I really could care less if the end result of the Civil War had turned out different like some southerners. What I can't grasp is how people can think that it was illegal...because by the books, it was not. It may be just an POV difference.

 

[Swamp Fox]

There is nothing in the constitution that says you can vote to leave the Union. Nothing. Zip doo da. Power specifically not enumerated does not include forming your own nation. Because that means you're doing the following. The constitution was also significantly ambigious to give congress the right to claim that it was illegal also.

What part of Amendment 10 don't you get. If it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, according to Amendment 10, the power belongs to the states and the people. Since leaving the union isn't listed, it's a power of the states and the people. The people voted, the state left.

The claims of the United States comes first. If it claims that a state is part of it's territory you can't use the constitution against that claim. In addition Lincoln had every right to invade.

Not when the United States is no longer recognized. When South Carolina left the Union, all of the claims held by the US Government are invalid.

A popular or favored rebellion is a rebellion (an insurgency ursurping the authority of the United States) none the less. The military is under the command of the President. It's his job to curb stomp it.

They didn't rebel, they took their ball and went home.

I wasn't saying it was smart. I wasn't saying it would work. I was saying that if they actually wanted to leave that was the legal way to go about it.

Where, praytell, is that spelled out? What's the "legal" way to do it? Seems to me that they did it the legal way and the north had a hissy fit about it.

The forts in which soldiers were stationed were Federal Property, not south carolinan. The fact that their government was illegitimate notwithstanding, the forts were federal property and any state that attacked or siezed them was comitting an act of war. You can't so "O well this belongs to you, but we now claim it as ours. So go." Even if they didn't recognize it as Federal property in the first place, it doesn't matter because it was federal property.

US property on land belonging to South Carolina. When they were politely asked to leave, they refused. That's when it became an invasion and the South responded with force.

See bit about insurrection.

Why? It wasn't an insurrection. It was a perfectly legal manuever allowed under Amendment 10 of the US Constitution which Lincoln chose to ignore and force his will upon the South.

 

[Ravi]

I would agree completely.

I really could care less if the end result of the Civil War had turned out different like some southerners. What I can't grasp is how people can think that it was illegal...because by the books, it was not. It may be just an POV difference.

No, it wasn't illegal but I've not been paying attention. People are actually claiming this?

 

[Swamp Fox]

No, it wasn't illegal but I've not been paying attention. People are actually claiming this?

Yep, people here are claiming that the South committed an illegal act by leaving the Union.

 

[BrianH]

No, it wasn't illegal but I've not been paying attention. People are actually claiming this?

believe it or not, yes. And I agree with you, it was not illegal. What's funny, is that there are three (I think) different threads on this same topic right now. I hope I wasn't the facilitator.

Some are using the Supreme Court ruling of 1869 (4 years after the war) to claim that the South was acting illegally in seceding from the UNion. It's a rediculous notion, but a notion none-the-less. THe South did nothing illegally in seceeding. Even the slavery that was made out to be the culprit, was legal until 1865.

 

[The_Hammer]

The South, at the time, was justified in seceding. Not only economically, but politically as well. What contracts have you ever entered into that were for life?

The fact that they weren't popping out enough people to compete with the norths massive population in the house isn't a justification. You can't bitch about playing a game if you're losing because suddenly you realize that the rules aren't in your favor and suddenly claim they aren't fair. You suck it up and deal. If they wanted to leave they should have done so legally.

The South had an agarian economy vs the North's mercantilist economy. These two economies did not work well together at the time, one wins and one loses financially. The North won the majority of the time when it came to economic stability. The South owed huge debts to the North, debts that were growing every year. This is because the money flow went Northward. The South was paying an enormous amount of federal expenses.

The south could have expanded their industrial base and modernized their economy. It's not like the money wasn't there. But they didn't. They did so during the war, but it was wayy too little too late.

So this leaves us to figure out why the South did not seek Congressional approval of secession. First, the North had a majority in both houses of Congress. When Abraham lincoln was elected, this did more (in the SOuth's eyes) to reinforce the Northern control of the government. So this leaves us at a potential compromise between the North and South...why did the South not seek to compromise?
Three compromises come to mind leading up to the Civil War: The Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Being a Southern minority in Congress, the territories were to become free, thus further increasing the North's power over the land.

Arguing the immorality to slavery is irrelevant to the topic of the South's secession...considering that slavery was still (by the book) legal when the states seceeded. Not to mention that there was a majority of non-slaveholders vs. slaveholders in the South. Large slave holders made up a meager percentage of the population as well as slaveholders being a minority to the whole population of the South. The South simply felt oppressed by the Union and were not represented well at the national level. It's the same concept of the American Revolution.

If a government is sucking money off of you while prohibiting your means of legal mass-production, you would have just cause for seceding, then.
Amendment 10 is vague, but because there is no law prohibiting a state from seceding, the state can reserve that power as stated by the 10th Amendment.

The south seceded over the fear of slavery becoming illegal and legislation against it. Also northern states were not complying with laws like the act which required escaped slaves to be returned to their masters. There were plenty of things related to other topics but the main reason was the souths fear on the attack on slavery.

From: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#Mississippi

Paragraph 2

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That's just Mississippi. This is for South Carolina.

From: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm

Paragraph 22

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

Paragraph 24

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.

Texas

From: http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

Paragraph 10

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

K the south seceded over slavery. Next whether or not what they did was legal.

 

[Ravi]

believe it or not, yes. And I agree with you, it was not illegal. What's funny, is that there are three (I think) different threads on this same topic right now. I hope I wasn't the facilitator.

Some are using the Supreme Court ruling of 1869 (4 years after the war) to claim that the South was acting illegally in seceding from the UNion. It's a rediculous notion, but a notion none-the-less. THe South did nothing illegally in seceeding. Even the slavery that was made out to be the culprit, was legal until 1865.

Admit it. You're just a trouble maker.

 

[BrianH]

You really are naive aren't you? No one is arguing that slavery played a part. If you really think that the North was fighting this noble cause to end slavery, you're wrong. It was not ok for the South to own slave, but it was ok for the North to abuse children by sticking them in industrial plants and working them to the core, while forcing immigrants right off the boat into military service??

Slavery was LEGAL until 1865. The North had legalized slavery the entire war, even after Lincolns emancipation proclamation. So there's your whole slavery issue.

The South seceded because they felt oppressed by the North, and that they had no representation in the government. Everything you've posted is an underlying factor of that...slavery being one of them.

As far as legality goes....the South was perfectly legal in seceding from the Union.

First, there is no law prohibiting secession in the Constitution.
Second, Amendment 10 grants all laws not prohibited to the states, to the states. And since secession is not prohibited, it is reserved to the states.

Oh, did I mention slavery was legal in the North and South, and that the UNion had several states that permitted slavery?

 

[BrianH]

Admit it. You're just a trouble maker.

only sometimes.

 

[The_Hammer]

What part of Amendment 10 don't you get. If it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, according to Amendment 10, the power belongs to the states and the people. Since leaving the union isn't listed, it's a power of the states and the people. The people voted, the state left.

You are saying it's an implied right because it's not specifically stated. However Federal superiority to the states is established and further implied throughout the constitution.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Bound by oath, ie contract, to support the constitution. You can't reject it. You can't not recognize it. Not recognizing the authority of the constitution is not recognizing the authority of the federal government.

Not when the United States is no longer recognized. When South Carolina left the Union, all of the claims held by the US Government are invalid.

There is a difference in one nation not recognizing another nation and a subject territory suddenly not recognizing the government it's under. The establishment of Federal superiority comes with restrictions placed on the states regarding inter-state transactions and treaties, raising and army, doing anything that a country normally does.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

I admit as I have before that is not a solid statement that states can not secede, however it is stronger than the argument that they can because the Federal government is sovereign in all the things that nations normally do, form treaties, have armies, etc.

They didn't rebel, they took their ball and went home.

They refused to recognize the authority of a nation that was sovereign to them. That's called rebellion.

Where, praytell, is that spelled out? What's the "legal" way to do it? Seems to me that they did it the legal way and the north had a hissy fit about it.

Congress was sovereign to the states. Anything that the states normally couldn't do they'd have to get congresses permission to do. Ergo, secession would need congressional approval.

US property on land belonging to South Carolina. When they were politely asked to leave, they refused. That's when it became an invasion and the South responded with force.

Please show me where the land upon which the fort sat, belonged to South Carolina.

Why? It wasn't an insurrection. It was a perfectly legal manuever allowed under Amendment 10 of the US Constitution which Lincoln chose to ignore and force his will upon the South.

See supremacy clause.