Secession in a surviving CSA

BlondieBC

Banned
Mostly to not alienate the Border States of the Union (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri) which did have wealthy members of its political framework which owned slaves. Once the Confederate string of victories were halted at Antietam and Gettysburg and the Union went on a effective offensive into the CSA then he had enough political backing to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, especially to gain the support of the British and French.

Otherwise a call for Emancipation would not have been seen as possibly being enforceable.

Not alienating the border states was a benefit, but not the reason. Only though a constitutional amendment could slavery be removed. Lincoln was using his military powers to use an order for a military conflict zone. Slaves were property, and he was simply seizing property of an insurrection. This is no different than an army seizing cows, wheat or horses.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
How about the actual declarations of secession instead of a wiki article?

They were state volunteers, but they were mustered into national service.


Instead of assuming all wiki info is wrong, how about you do a counter source???

BTW, pick up any american high school history book. The South Carolina tariff secession threat is likely to in there. From memory only, the 1860 vote was the third time that SC had vote on leaving the union. Once on the tariffs, once on another occasion. The first two votes failed.


They were state armies. Yes, both the Union and CSA had a command structure, but they had a command structure over state armies. And at least in the CSA, the state had the final say where their regiments went.
 
Instead of assuming all wiki info is wrong, how about you do a counter source???

Because I think you can go to the trouble of finding http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South Carolina for yourself and reading the declaration that it has to do with the naughty North not cooperating on the issue of the FSL and other slavery related matters.

BTW, pick up any american high school history book. The South Carolina tariff secession threat is likely to in there. From memory only, the 1860 vote was the third time that SC had vote on leaving the union. Once on the tariffs, once on another occasion. The first two votes failed.

The average American high school history book is full of more crap than the average outhouse.

They were state armies. Yes, both the Union and CSA had a command structure, but they had a command structure over state armies. And at least in the CSA, the state had the final say where their regiments went.

They had a command structure over state volunteers in national service when it comes to the So-and-so Volunteers. The Confederate governors refusing to cooperate with the national government is not the same as a government truly founded on states rights.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Because I think you can go to the trouble of finding http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South Carolina for yourself and reading the declaration that it has to do with the naughty North not cooperating on the issue of the FSL and other slavery related matters.



The average American high school history book is full of more crap than the average outhouse.



They had a command structure over state volunteers in national service when it comes to the So-and-so Volunteers. The Confederate governors refusing to cooperate with the national government is not the same as a government truly founded on states rights.

You link goes to documents related to the 1860 vote. It is not on topic on the 1828 threat. I am a bit unclear, do you dispute that SC threatened to leave the union over tariffs about 1828?

http://www.answers.com/topic/how-di...outh-carolina-seceding-from-the-union-in-1832

The central government was not a separate sovereignty, but simply an agent of the several States. Thus the people of each State, acting in special conventions, had the right to nullify federal law that exceeded the powers granted to Congress through the Constitution. If a popular convention declared a law unconstitutional, it would become null and void in a State. Congress could then either yield and repeal the law or propose a constitutional amendment expressly giving it the power in question. If the amendment was ratified by three-fourths of the States and added to the Constitution, the nullifying State could then either accept the decision or exercise its ultimate right as a sovereign state and secede from the Union. (See link below)

http://jackiewhiting.net/collab/leadandpower/tariff1828.htm

I guess one can see a difference between not following federal laws and formally leaving the union, but it is small difference. In 1861, the shooting started over resupplying a fort in SC, not over the election only.


South Carolina thought about leaving over Tariffs, Virginia over the Alien and Sedition Act, etc. State's rights are very important to the founding of the USA and the USA constitution. The bold text is my original statement. I still stand by this statement. SC thought about leaving the Union over tariffs. There are difference between the legal mechanism employed, but i would say a SC that ignores federal laws is basically an SC that is not apart of the Union. Tariffs were a major source of tax revenue back then, and if no tariffs are collected, the federal government is broke.

I disagree on your last point. A government is only a government if it can compel action. State's rights mean that the states have unlimited power, but the federal government has limited listed powers. Today, an American command has control over European troops in combat in Afghanistan, but, at any time, the president of the respective european country can order his troops home. So we have a German army, French Army, etc. So, I believe it is correct to say that before the civil war, we had a Texas army, Louisiana army, etc. During the war, these state armies were combined under a largely unified command, but remained state armies.

The USA was clearly founded on states rights. Each state though of itself as a sovereign state. Lee was a Virginian first, and American second. The civil war began the process of changing the USA. Today, the USA does not really have State's rights as understood in the early 1800's. It is rare that the supreme court strikes down a law based on states rights, and i would be shocked if the court ever does a strict (restrictive) interpretation of the commerce clause.
 
There was none. The Confederacy's founders were very careful that having successfully broken away from the USA had their state lasted no state would have voluntarily broken away from the CSA in a peaceful process.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

Read the article. South Carolina thought about leaving over Tariffs, Virginia over the Alien and Sedition Act, etc. State's rights are very important to the founding of the USA and the USA constitution.

If the Confederacy had really been about anything other than slavery then the Cleburne Memorial would have ended their manpower problem in 1864 and enabled them to squeak out a victory in the attrition war. :rolleyes:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

Read the article. South Carolina thought about leaving over Tariffs, Virginia over the Alien and Sedition Act, etc. State's rights are very important to the founding of the USA and the USA constitution.

Then it is funny that that one of the first things that the South did after the CSA did after it was formed was pass a law that all the current laws of the US government that was not in conflict with the CSA constitution was adopted and continued in force subject to repeal and adjustments to said laws by the CSA government later. The 1857 tariff was part of it and not repealed. Enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts were long gone by 1862. The Federalist Party pretty much ceased to exist after 1800 largely over that issue. All the Southern states that seceded mentioned slavery as being part of the reason they seceded and no Free State seceded. Also the constitution was set up in such a way that no Free State would be allowed to join nor did it allow any CSA state to become a Free State de-facto.
 
Instead of assuming all wiki info is wrong, how about you do a counter source???

BTW, pick up any american high school history book. The South Carolina tariff secession threat is likely to in there. From memory only, the 1860 vote was the third time that SC had vote on leaving the union. Once on the tariffs, once on another occasion. The first two votes failed.


They were state armies. Yes, both the Union and CSA had a command structure, but they had a command structure over state armies. And at least in the CSA, the state had the final say where their regiments went.

That's not how things worked in the real, historical war. In the historical war the CSA adopted the more wide-sweeping and in a real sense truly centralized policies of raising and equipping Confederate armies, the Union into 1865 had by far the more decentralized policy of raising and equipping armies, individual states kept creating new regimes instead of filling up older veteran ones throughout the war. It's ironic that it turned out that way, but that's how it turned out.
 
Oh Lord..have I started a flame war? :confused:

Nah, this is a virtual guarantee in these kinds of threads that at least one commenter will claim that Confederate secession was about anything other than the actual cause. By usual standards this is actually a pretty civilized version of that predictable derailing.
 

Warsie

Banned
Well South Carolina threatened to secede from the Confederacy, right?

Why did Lincoln wait until quite late in the war before he issued the proclamation of emancipation?
I'm enough of a cynic to not buy that the same man who'd said that he'd free no slave if it could keep the union together, had no ulterior motive in this...

He did it to basically shit on the confederate economy after being sure the border states wouldn't secede.
 
I always find it amusing that Americans calling the southern states traitors for seceeding from the US, when ALL 13 states did exactly the same less than a century earlier.
Hard to say without being called a slavery-sympathizer, though, but I'm counting on the level of intellect and capability of abstract thought being greater here.
Btw, just for thought: Why did Lincoln wait until quite late in the war before he issued the proclamation of emancipation?
I'm enough of a cynic to not buy that the same man who'd said that he'd free no slave if it could keep the union together, had no ulterior motive in this...

Because when his generals issued individual decrees earlier on it led to threats by recently-decided-to-stay-Union Union states that they might secede and he chose the pragmatic option over his personal beliefs? The Union included Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, ultimately West Virginia, Kentucky, and the District of Columbia as slave territories in the Union alliance, immediately going to emancipation would have increased the Confederacy's territory to 15 states plus the District of Columbia.

Lincoln's goal was to win the war first and foremost, everything else had to be subjugated to that purpose. He was also always in favor of all men being free, he viewed his goal as enforcing the laws as taking precedence over his personal views. This seems a bit too subtle a concept for a lot of his critics in the 1860s-now to understand.
 
Or....maybe Lincoln didn't really have strong opinions on slavery one way or the other (as per his earlier statement), but sensed an opportunity to use the issue to his advantage?
I realize I might be stepping on some toes here. That's not the objective, however.

Or perhaps Lincoln had strong personal views, was too much a lawyer to give those views precedence over letter and spirit of the law, and was pulled along into issuing a decree of this sort in order to end the war, as opposed to trying to abolish slavery? Lincoln believed and rightly so that the Constitution of 1860 justified slavery, this is a reason he pushed so strongly for the 13th Amendment in the version that was to abolish, not perpetuate always and forever, slavery.
 
Or perhaps Lincoln had strong personal views, was too much a lawyer to give those views precedence over letter and spirit of the law, and was pulled along into issuing a decree of this sort in order to end the war, as opposed to trying to abolish slavery? Lincoln believed and rightly so that the Constitution of 1860 justified slavery, this is a reason he pushed so strongly for the 13th Amendment in the version that was to abolish, not perpetuate always and forever, slavery.

He also realized if he didn't win the war any declaration he made about slavery would be worth squat. If he lost the South would naturally disregard anything he said about slavery.
 
You link goes to documents related to the 1860 vote. It is not on topic on the 1828 threat. I am a bit unclear, do you dispute that SC threatened to leave the union over tariffs about 1828?

http://www.answers.com/topic/how-di...outh-carolina-seceding-from-the-union-in-1832

Not relevant to the case of the Civil War.

I disagree on your last point. A government is only a government if it can compel action. State's rights mean that the states have unlimited power, but the federal government has limited listed powers. Today, an American command has control over European troops in combat in Afghanistan, but, at any time, the president of the respective european country can order his troops home. So we have a German army, French Army, etc. So, I believe it is correct to say that before the civil war, we had a Texas army, Louisiana army, etc. During the war, these state armies were combined under a largely unified command, but remained state armies.

Before the civil war, we have state militias and volunteers enrolled into Federal service, and the regular army. As for a government being a government only if it can compel action: So, the government trying and not always succeeding is the same as not having authority? Being legally able to do something and practically able to enforce it are not necessarily the same thing.

The USA was clearly founded on states rights. Each state though of itself as a sovereign state. Lee was a Virginian first, and American second. The civil war began the process of changing the USA. Today, the USA does not really have State's rights as understood in the early 1800's. It is rare that the supreme court strikes down a law based on states rights, and i would be shocked if the court ever does a strict (restrictive) interpretation of the commerce clause.

The USA was clearly founded as one country. And the idea that the states were sovereign was hardly universal.

The (seceding) South clung to that far more than the other two thirds of the states.
 
Instead of assuming all wiki info is wrong, how about you do a counter source???

He did. You ignored it.

In 1861 the states that tried to secede made their reasons very clear - "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
 
The USA was clearly founded on states rights. Each state though of itself as a sovereign state.

"...it has been claimed within the last few years that any State, whenever this shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may secede from the Union in accordance with the Constitution and without any violation of the constitutional rights of the other members of the Confederacy; that as each became parties to the Union by the vote of its own people assembled in convention, so any one of them may retire from the Union in a similar manner by the vote of such a convention.

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.


Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Constitution. After it was framed with the greatest deliberation and care it was submitted to conventions of the people of the several States for ratification. Its provisions were discussed at length in these bodies, composed of the first men of the country. Its opponents contended that it conferred powers upon the Federal Government dangerous to the rights of the States, whilst its advocates maintained that under a fair construction of the instrument there was no foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty struggle between the first intellects of this or any other country it never occurred to any individual, either among its opponents or advocates, to assert or even to intimate that their efforts were all vain labor, because the moment that any State felt herself aggrieved she might secede from the Union. What a crushing argument would this have proved against those who dreaded that the rights of the States would be endangered by the Constitution! The truth is that it was not until many years after the origin of the Federal Government that such a proposition was first advanced. It was then met and refuted by the conclusive arguments of General Jackson, who in his message of the 16th of January, 1833, transmitting the nullifying ordinance of South Carolina to Congress, employs the following language:


The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain.


It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance to such a theory. It is altogether rounded upon inference; not from any language contained in the instrument itself, but from the sovereign character of the several States by which it was ratified. But is it beyond the power of a State, like an individual, to yield a portion of its sovereign rights to secure the remainder? In the language of Mr. Madison, who has been called the father of the Constitution--


It was formed by the States; that is, by the people in each of the States acting in their highest sovereign capacity, and formed, consequently, by the same authority which formed the State constitutions. Nor is the Government of the United States, created by the Constitution, less a government, in the strict sense of the term, within the sphere of its powers than the governments created by the constitutions of the States are within their several spheres. It is, like them, organized into legislative, executive, and judiciary departments. It operates, like them directly on persons and things, and, like them, it has at command a physical force for executing the powers committed to it.


It was intended to be perpetual, and not to be annulled at the pleasure of any one of the contracting parties. The old Articles of Confederation were entitled "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States," and by the thirteenth article it is expressly declared that "the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual." The preamble to the Constitution of the United States, having express reference to the Articles of Confederation, recites that it was established "in order to form a more perfect union." And yet it is contended that this "more perfect union" does not include the essential attribute of perpetuity.


But that the Union was designed to be perpetual appears conclusively from the nature and extent of the powers conferred by the Constitution on the Federal Government. " - James Buchanan
 
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.


Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Constitution. After it was framed with the greatest deliberation and care it was submitted to conventions of the people of the several States for ratification. Its provisions were discussed at length in these bodies, composed of the first men of the country. Its opponents contended that it conferred powers upon the Federal Government dangerous to the rights of the States, whilst its advocates maintained that under a fair construction of the instrument there was no foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty struggle between the first intellects of this or any other country it never occurred to any individual, either among its opponents or advocates, to assert or even to intimate that their efforts were all vain labor, because the moment that any State felt herself aggrieved she might secede from the Union. What a crushing argument would this have proved against those who dreaded that the rights of the States would be endangered by the Constitution! The truth is that it was not until many years after the origin of the Federal Government that such a proposition was first advanced. It was then met and refuted by the conclusive arguments of General Jackson, who in his message of the 16th of January, 1833, transmitting the nullifying ordinance of South Carolina to Congress, employs the following language:


The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain.


It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance to such a theory. It is altogether rounded upon inference; not from any language contained in the instrument itself, but from the sovereign character of the several States by which it was ratified. But is it beyond the power of a State, like an individual, to yield a portion of its sovereign rights to secure the remainder? In the language of Mr. Madison, who has been called the father of the Constitution--


It was formed by the States; that is, by the people in each of the States acting in their highest sovereign capacity, and formed, consequently, by the same authority which formed the State constitutions. Nor is the Government of the United States, created by the Constitution, less a government, in the strict sense of the term, within the sphere of its powers than the governments created by the constitutions of the States are within their several spheres. It is, like them, organized into legislative, executive, and judiciary departments. It operates, like them directly on persons and things, and, like them, it has at command a physical force for executing the powers committed to it.


It was intended to be perpetual, and not to be annulled at the pleasure of any one of the contracting parties. The old Articles of Confederation were entitled "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States," and by the thirteenth article it is expressly declared that "the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual." The preamble to the Constitution of the United States, having express reference to the Articles of Confederation, recites that it was established "in order to form a more perfect union." And yet it is contended that this "more perfect union" does not include the essential attribute of perpetuity.


But that the Union was designed to be perpetual appears conclusively from the nature and extent of the powers conferred by the Constitution on the Federal Government. " - James Buchanan

The bolded shows why such a government isn't likely to last long. It is built on sand. Either the CSA is going to have to give up "state's rights" or cease to exist. I think it would be the former as "state's rights" wasn't what the war was about in the first place. It was just a cover for "slaver's rights" which most fire-eaters knew was unpopular abroad.
 
Top