Why Did The South Secede?

[JakeStarkey]

Which then reduces the argument to slavery as the root cause for all symptoms for secession.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Which then reduces the argument to slavery as the root cause for all symptoms for secession.

And the resulting Civil War.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[bendog]

Yes. And that isn't to say all the southerners wanted to keep Blacks enslaved. Rather, I suspect the majority were apathetic as to the institution of slavery, but they didn't "cotton to" competing with then economically, and they sure didn't want something like 7 million of them armed and on the loose.

And I'm quite sure the majority of northern immigrants who served had no interest in emancipation either.

An irony, imo.

 

[longly]

If the people are sovereign how can they be traitor against themselves. Are you going to say that a state is not sovereign unit of government. Benjamin Franklin once said that a man can only be traitor to his own country. Once the states seceded they are no longer American citizens. I believe that power, that is sovereignty, come from the People; a stateist believes political comes from the barrel of a gun.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the people are sovereign how can they be traitor against themselves. Are you going to say that a state is not sovereign unit of government. Benjamin Franklin once said that a man can only be traitor to his own country. Once the states seceded they are no longer American citizens. I believe that power, that is sovereignty, come from the People; a stateist believes political comes from the barrel of a gun.

This post makes no sense, particularly the bolded.


One may not have his American citizenship taken from him against his will solely as a consequence of his state of residence wishing to 'secede.'


We are first and foremost citizens of the United States, where the states are subordinate to that; the states have no authority to take from an American citizen his citizenship, just as the states may not violate a citizen's civil liberties.


The American people created one Nation, where they are subject to one National government, as the states are permanently and inexorability part of one Union:


“A distinctive character of the National Government, the mark of its legitimacy, is that it owes its existence to the act of the whole people who created it. It must be remembered that the National Government too is republican in essence and in theory. John Jay insisted on this point early in The Federalist Papers, in his comments on the government that preceded the one formed by the Constitution.

To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people; each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. . . .

[...]

In one sense it is true that "the people of each State retained their separate political identities," post, at 5, for the Constitution takes care both to preserve the States and to make use of their identities and structures at various points in organizing the federal union. It does not at all follow from this that the sole political identity of an American is with the State of his or her residence. It denies the dual character of the Federal Government which is its very foundation to assert that the people of the United States do not have a political identity as well, one independent of, though consistent with, their identity as citizens of the State of their residence.”


U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton 514 U.S. 779 1995 .

 

[Statistikhengst]

Again, the very fact that some people are trying to relitigate all of this is just plain old sad.

 

[longly]

If the people are sovereign how can they be traitor against themselves. Are you going to say that a state is not sovereign unit of government. Benjamin Franklin once said that a man can only be traitor to his own country. Once the states seceded they are no longer American citizens. I believe that power, that is sovereignty, come from the People; a stateist believes political comes from the barrel of a gun.

This post makes no sense, particularly the bolded.

.

I might be giving the wrong impression; I am not in favor of the idea secession. I agree with Robert E Lee. He said something to the effect of, If you win you lose by becoming a weaker country than the one you once had. If in the future a Hispanic southwest decides to secede and join Mexico, we must do whatever it takes to stop it, even if it is worse than Sherman.
The point I was making is that the People of a state ( the state) is sovereign( the king). The king can not commit treason.

 

[bendog]

Ah, but if secession were not a constitutional remedy, the state has no power as sovereign because the state ceded sovereignty when it ratified the constitution.

I have no interest in relitigating the cause of the lost cause (-: An ironic term if there ever was one. LOL

I posted to Jake, basically to say I agree if he was saying the differences boiled down to slaves. Perhaps even in 1780, the culture of agriculture labor done by slaves on a large scale was effectively uncompromisingly dissimilar to the Yankee colonists.

Imo, discussing the rational, and legal basis, for believing secession is a remedy, or nullification a remedy, is useful. Logically, I don't think one can make a case for either.

 

[Bush92]

The South seceded because they had every right to do so.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Well, I'm not so quick to think Madison was all in favor of secession.

Right of Revolution James Madison to Daniel Webster

Nor Adams. But that's really a digression from the OP.

I liked the post on the "upper southern states" not being all for secession ... at least at first. But trying to argue the War of Northern Aggression was about anything but slavery seems a fool's errand. The whites feared the slaves having power. Whether you owned one or not wasn't the question. Monroe pondered the question of what to do with them all.

Tariffs, trade .... all aspects to the central question of the largest piece of capital by far was the value of the slaves in the deep south, and the value they could produce.

Madison said different things at different times about the right of secession and nullification, but there were times when he spoke in favor of both.

Jefferson was clear on his support for the right of secession. So were Timothy Pickering and John Quincy Adams. One fact is clear beyond dispute: The records of the constitutional convention and the various state ratification conventions make it clear that the Union was not supposed to be maintained by force.

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary

As for the war being "all about slavery," I just don't see that, especially given the Confederate debate on emancipation, which began in 1863 and which ended with the Confederacy moving toward gradual emancipation.

The Confederate emancipation debate revealed a wide gulf between average Southerners and plantation slaveholders. When emancipation was put to a vote in Confederate army units, including Lee's army, it won handily. Southern newspaper editors reported that their mail was running strongly in favor of emancipating slaves in exchange for military service. Most Southerners, including Jefferson Davis, viewed independence as the main goal of the war, not the preservation of slavery. When push came to shove, they were entirely willing to end slavery to keep the South independent.

What I find especially revealing are Southern private letters, which were not intended to be read by others, in which Southerners expressed outrage at the charge that the South was fighting merely to preserve slavery. For example, when Joseph Davis wrote to his brother, Jefferson Davis, he voiced his disgust and dismay that Union soldiers in his area were claiming that the South was only fighting to protect slavery. He regarded that charge as scurrilous and absurd.

 

[bendog]

Well, I'm not so quick to think Madison was all in favor of secession.

Right of Revolution James Madison to Daniel Webster

Nor Adams. But that's really a digression from the OP.

I liked the post on the "upper southern states" not being all for secession ... at least at first. But trying to argue the War of Northern Aggression was about anything but slavery seems a fool's errand. The whites feared the slaves having power. Whether you owned one or not wasn't the question. Monroe pondered the question of what to do with them all.

Tariffs, trade .... all aspects to the central question of the largest piece of capital by far was the value of the slaves in the deep south, and the value they could produce.

Madison said different things at different times about the right of secession and nullification, but there were times when he spoke in favor of both.

Jefferson was clear on his support for the right of secession. So were Timothy Pickering and John Quincy Adams. One fact is clear beyond dispute: The records of the constitutional convention and the various state ratification conventions make it clear that the Union was not supposed to be maintained by force.

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary

As for the war being "all about slavery," I just don't see that, especially given the Confederate debate on emancipation, which began in 1863 and which ended with the Confederacy moving toward gradual emancipation.

The Confederate emancipation debate revealed a wide gulf between average Southerners and plantation slaveholders. When emancipation was put to a vote in Confederate army units, including Lee's army, it won handily. Southern newspaper editors reported that their mail was running strongly in favor of emancipating slaves in exchange for military service. Most Southerners, including Jefferson Davis, viewed independence as the main goal of the war, not the preservation of slavery. When push came to shove, they were entirely willing to end slavery to keep the South independent.

What I find especially revealing are Southern private letters, which were not intended to be read by others, in which Southerners expressed outrage at the charge that the South was fighting merely to preserve slavery. For example, when Joseph Davis wrote to his brother, Jefferson Davis, he voiced his disgust and dismay that Union soldiers in his area were claiming that the South was only fighting to protect slavery. He regarded that charge as scurrilous and absurd.

Yeah, I know JQ Adams was for it, but he was not a founder. After reading the fairly recent biography on John Adams, who was really the father of the US and Mass Const, I think he was against it. But, I haven't looked at the book in a two years or so, so I can't be more specific.

As for slavery, I'll assume it's true that southerners could support ending slavery as personal ownership, but there was never support for blacks having the same econ and civil rights.
Jefferson Davis s white supremacist and pro-slavery views in his memoirs published in 1881

 

[mikegriffith1]

Let's put it this way: If you reject the right of secession, then you're rejecting the Declaration of Independence (DOI) and are taking the British view of the natural right of a group of colonies/states to be separate from the national government.

The DOI is a purely secessionist document. Its purpose was to announce that the colonies were separating from England and were assuming their place among the nations as an independent nation. The DOI says that when the governed no longer consent to being governed, the governed have a right to alter or abolish their form of government and to form one of their own--and the key point here is that the Patriots wanted England to let the colonies leave in peace.

The Patriots did not want war. They only fought because England would not recognize the colonies' "natural right" (as the Patriots put it) to be independent, and they deeply resented being forced to fight for something that they believed the British should grant them as a matter of right and principle. In fact, the DOI called the colonies "states" and said they were "of right" free and independent:

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.​

 

[longly]

Ah, but if secession were not a constitutional remedy, the state has no power as sovereign because the state ceded sovereignty when it ratified the constitution.

.

I am sorry but you are wrong, see the tenth amendment.
I have a couple of questions for you if you will.
1. What do you think the state is?
2. Is the United States a federation?

 

[OODA_Loop]

I am sorry but you are wrong, see the tenth amendment.
I have a couple of questions for you if you will.
1. What do you think the state is?
2. Is the United States a federation?

Are the United States a federation ?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Amazing that yahoos on an internet board are still trying to litigate how the South was somehow wronged in the 1800s.

Just amazing.

Righties: grow up and grow some.

 

[bendog]

Let's put it this way: If you reject the right of secession, then you're rejecting the Declaration of Independence (DOI) and are taking the British view of the natural right of a group of colonies/states to be separate from the national government.

The DOI is a purely secessionist document. Its purpose was to announce that the colonies were separating from England and were assuming their place among the nations as an independent nation. The DOI says that when the governed no longer consent to being governed, the governed have a right to alter or abolish their form of government and to form one of their own--and the key point here is that the Patriots wanted England to let the colonies leave in peace.

The Patriots did not want war. They only fought because England would not recognize the colonies' "natural right" (as the Patriots put it) to be independent, and they deeply resented being forced to fight for something that they believed the British should grant them as a matter of right and principle. In fact, the DOI called the colonies "states" and said they were "of right" free and independent:

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.​

That's just an historically warped analogy. I'm sorry, but there's no nicer way of saying that. Most fundamentally, the colonies had no political representation in parliament. The confederate states always had representation. The argument was that non-slave holding states would have more senators as the nation expanded, so the South's views would not be adequately represented. We've already discussed if a compromise was possible, and my view was that by the election of 1860, there was no compromise possible.

The Founders view was that if England denied them representation, England had no justification for governing them. Also, it seems historically warped to argue the Declaration has some meaning as to the Constitution. If the Constitution was somehow contrary to the ideals expressed in the Declaration, the very people who drew the Declaration would not have ratified the BOR and Constitution.

Basically, there are two views. Did, or did not, the states reserve a right to secede when they ratified the const and BOR? I think they did not, most basically because of art 1 sec 10

Section 10
1: 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.
2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
3: 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.

That seems pretty clear to me. And historically what occurred when the States ratified was they were giving up some sovereignty in exchange for a union. It was clear to the founders that the individual states would not be strong enough to keep Europeans from carving out sections of what the founders wanted as an "American" country. A state couldn't accomplish that goal, if it reserved sovereignty to destroy what it had consented to. The BOR evolved to address concerns of what personal protections were being given up.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The South felt it was threatened by it's way of life..And rejected the proposal by Lincoln to buy the slaves and set them free..

Oh really, tell me more of this proposal, with some supporting documentation...

The war over slavery was a festering boil that was decades in the making.It just didn't occur with one president, it was an issue over states rights and the balance of power by the pro and anti crowd in federal legislation...
Oblama has not a damn thing to do with the reasons for the Civil war...The Bible does since it advocated slavery and how to treat them as slaves. So if God said it was ok, why not do it?

Lincoln leveraged the issue, pushing for war. Earlier compromises had avoided war, but Lincoln actively sought an armed conflict. Adding to what PC posted, arrogance on both sides led to tragic results, The North believed they would defeat the South in weeks. The South knew they had all the strategists and likewise expected an easy victory. Had Stonewall Jackson not been killed (by his own men, BTW) there is every reason to believe the South would have prevailed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Amazing that yahoos on an internet board are still trying to litigate how the South was somehow wronged in the 1800s.

Just amazing.

Righties: grow up and grow some.

And where do you see anyone saying the South was wronged, Statist?

 

[bendog]

Amazing that yahoos on an internet board are still trying to litigate how the South was somehow wronged in the 1800s.

Just amazing.

Righties: grow up and grow some.

And where do you see anyone saying the South was wronged, Statist?

At the risk of sounding BillClintonesque, "define wronged."?

In 1860 owning a slave was perfectly legal in the South, and the Fifth Amendment prohibits taking private property w/o compensation. In 1860, slaves represented 1/2 of total private property in the South, and about 1/5 overall in the nation. Something in excess of 10 TRILLION dollars in 2011 dollars.

Measuring Worth - Measuring the Value of a Slave

One can argue slavery was immoral, and it was, but morality does not make law. What Lincoln did with the Emancipation Proclamation was declaring total war on any state that remained in secession. Slaves in non-seceding states remained private property. Those in seceding states were taken from their owners without compensation despite the fact that if the state was STILL in the union, the federal govt lacked the power to do so, and the North's justification for invading the South was the state lacked the constitutional power to secede, so secession had never been legally effective. If anyone can think of a more outrageous reach of federal power than taking something like a 1/5 of total private property without compensation, let me know.

 

[bendog]

The South felt it was threatened by it's way of life..And rejected the proposal by Lincoln to buy the slaves and set them free..

Oh really, tell me more of this proposal, with some supporting documentation...

The war over slavery was a festering boil that was decades in the making.It just didn't occur with one president, it was an issue over states rights and the balance of power by the pro and anti crowd in federal legislation...
Oblama has not a damn thing to do with the reasons for the Civil war...The Bible does since it advocated slavery and how to treat them as slaves. So if God said it was ok, why not do it?

Lincoln leveraged the issue, pushing for war. Earlier compromises had avoided war, but Lincoln actively sought an armed conflict. Adding to what PC posted, arrogance on both sides led to tragic results, The North believed they would defeat the South in weeks. The South knew they had all the strategists and likewise expected an easy victory. Had Stonewall Jackson not been killed (by his own men, BTW) there is every reason to believe the South would have prevailed.

I don't know of any historical support for Lincoln seeking war. I'm sure he thought it probably inevitable, though. The only way the South won, i.e. stayed in secession was if the Union stopped fighting. Because Linconln's reelection in 1864 was largely due to the troops choosing to finish the thing, rather than to take a copperhead peace with McClellan, I don't see that as possible. Further, even if one thinks that had Jackson survived Chancellorsville, Gettysburg would have turned out differently, the South never won a truly decisive battle over the Army of the Potomac that kept it from licking its wounds to fight another day. And Grant came East in 1864, and ground down the Army of Northern Virginia with the Wilderness, Spotslvania and Grant's greatest debacle at Cold Harbor. And still the northern soldiers voted to keep fighting.