Were the Southern States wrong to secede?

[Telaynay's G'son]

I don't take such a pessimistic view.

Paul

Paul,

It is factual and while to some pessimistic to others a sad reality.

BTW, getting past all the "high moral ground" pontifications some are doomed to repeat as a daily mantra instead focus upon what the real issues precipitating the conflict entailed.

First, the southern states had enjoyed political dominance for decades and they also had the wealth dominance covered as well. The slaves (monetary value) accounted for more accrued wealth than all the combined land value of the entire country.

So, this war was necessary to break both the south's political as well as asset dominance of the country. It was a war for total domination and to decide who was going to run things and what direction (agriculture vs. manufacturing) the economy was headed as well. The north had all the cards in manpower and material but still almost lost the game and took 4 years to decide what they initially calculated to be a 90-day event.

One only has to examine the course and actions of this country from April, 1861 forward to gain a concise appreciation of who profited from the events.

There were also several "firsts" with this war:

First time an entire state legislature (Maryland) was arrested (by Lincoln's order) prior to voting upon an issue. They never got the chance to decide the secession issue.

First time Habeus Corpus (again, courtesy A. Lincoln) was suspended.

First race riot in the US in the form of the Conscription Riot of 1862 in NYC wherein ~100 black people were murdered and the army had to be sent in to restore order.

First "gun control" laws enacted (post 04-1865 ) in the south to further subjugate the civilian populations living there.

Also, the Emancipation Proclaimation didn't apply to slave holder states outside of the Confederacy as it was merely a (failed) attempt to incite rebellion among the slaves and not the great humanitarian document so revered in the history books. Lincoln was a pragmatist not some bleeding-heart idealist.

After the war ended there was an organized attempt to send people of African descent back to (Liberia) Africa, another "first".

No, people this war was all about the "Golden Rule" in that he who has the gold makes the rules...nothing more, nothing less.

 

[drkitten]

People that haven't grown up under post-1865 colonial yankee rule in the south don't have a clue.

I'm not sure if it's the stupid that burns, or the irony....

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Paul,

It is factual and while to some pessimistic to others a sad reality.

BTW, getting past all the "high moral ground" pontifications some are doomed to repeat as a daily mantra instead focus upon what the real issues precipitating the conflict entailed.

First, the southern states had enjoyed political dominance for decades and they also had the wealth dominance covered as well. The slaves (monetary value) accounted for more accrued wealth than all the combined land value of the entire country.

So, this war was necessary to break both the south's political as well as asset dominance of the country. It was a war for total domination and to decide who was going to run things and what direction (agriculture vs. manufacturing) the economy was headed as well. The north had all the cards in manpower and material but still almost lost the game and took 4 years to decide what they initially calculated to be a 90-day event.

... you should not comment on things you do not know about. Seriously, do you realize why A. Lincoln was elected? Because the other contenders were considered too radical on the slavery issue (W.H Seward, S. Chase)

Anyway, if the war was neccessary.. and was against the south.. why did they fire on Fort Sumpter? THe South seriously initated this entire thing, which I note a lot of people seem to ignore.

One only has to examine the course and actions of this country from April, 1861 forward to gain a concise appreciation of who profited from the events.

There were also several "firsts" with this war:

First time an entire state legislature (Maryland) was arrested (by Lincoln's order) prior to voting upon an issue. They never got the chance to decide the secession issue.

Not the entire legislature. Also (and for some reason this is hard to dig up) - Lincoln did not arrest the entire legislature. Will dig up cite later, it's in a book I can't find at the moment.

First time Habeus Corpus (again, courtesy A. Lincoln) was suspended.

Geez. I wonder why. It's not like we had a rebelli... WAIT WE HAD A REBELLION.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Bolding mine.

First race riot in the US in the form of the Conscription Riot of 1862 in NYC wherein ~100 black people were murdered and the army had to be sent in to restore order.

Yes, when an openly Democratic paper + Democratic governor whipped them up. DAMN THOSE ... wait,.. that's now how that goes..

First "gun control" laws enacted (post 04-1865 ) in the south to further subjugate the civilian populations living there.

.. they sorta lost. (To be fair, this probably wasn't in A. Lincoln's mind, but he was sorta assassinated...) Finally, subjugate isn't exactly the best word, but I allow you're making no sense.

Also, the Emancipation Proclaimation didn't apply to slave holder states outside of the Confederacy as it was merely a (failed) attempt to incite rebellion among the slaves and not the great humanitarian document so revered in the history books. Lincoln was a pragmatist not some bleeding-heart idealist.

... OK, I'm going to quote again:

(reply to Prayer of Twenty Millions) [22 Aug 1862]

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union: and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors, and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”

(bolding mine)

And, further down....

Under date of July 18, he wrote the following:

“To whom it may concern:“

“Any proposition which embraces the restoration of peace, the integrity of the whole Union, and the abandonment of slavery, and which comes by and with an authority that can control the armies now at war with the United States, will be received and considered by the Executive government of the United States, and will be met on liberal terms on substantial and collateral points; and the bearer or bearers thereof shall have safe-conduct both ways.”

“ABRAHAM LINCOLN.”

... and, if you wnat something earlier: Did it occur to you, that as President, he might have been a little pragmatic about what steps he took? And maybe he wanted hte public behind him?

Because:

Let us now glance at his record. We have already seen (in chapter V.) how he revolted from the first view of the horrors of the institution, and the youthful vow which he there recorded will not readily be forgotten. That was in 1831 when he was twenty-two years of age.

Six years later, or in 1837, when he was a youthful member of the Illinois legislature, he persuaded Stone to join him in a protest against slavery. There was positively nothing to be gained by this protest, either personally or in behalf of the slave. The only possible reason for it was that he believed that slavery was wrong and could not rest until he had openly expressed that belief. “A timely utterance gave that thought relief, And I again am strong.”

When he was in congress, in 1846, the famous Wilmot Proviso came up. This was to provide “that, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the republic of Mexico by the United States ... neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of the said territory.” By reason of amendments, this subject came before the house very many times, and Lincoln said afterwards that he had voted for the proviso in one form or another forty-two times.

On the 16th day of January, 1849, he introduced into congress a bill for the emancipation of slavery in the District of Columbia. This was a wise and reasonable bill. It gave justice to all, and at the same time gathered all the fruits of emancipation in the best possible way. The bill did not pass, there was no hope at the time that it would pass. But it compelled a reasonable discussion of the subject and had a certain amount of educational influence.

(SRC: http://www.authorama.com/life-of-abraham-lincoln-33.html)
I'll find some individual cites later.

After the war ended there was an organized attempt to send people of African descent back to (Liberia) Africa, another "first".

... there was. OF private groups. Did you know they existed before the Civil War?

No, people this war was all about the "Golden Rule" in that he who has the gold makes the rules...nothing more, nothing less.

And you seem to select events quite.. selectively.

People that haven't grown up under post-1865 colonial yankee rule in the south don't have a clue

Hi. I grew up in North Carolina.

 

[kmortis]

Um, there have been fairly recent rulings and by more than just the SCOTUS stating that secession is not legal. Comparing that to the Jim Crow ruling is dishonest and obtuse. And, if the SCOTUS (especially the very conservative, "strict constructionist," whatever the hell that means, one we have now) is supposed to uphold the constitution, then it would perfectly acceptable for them to say, "Yep, it says it right there in the 10th amendment: you can secede if someone steps on your toes a little."

It's not obtuse to say that not all of SCOTUS have been winners. It's just an acceptance that mores change over time. The deplorable situation was setup by the SCOTUS (Plessy v. Ferguson) and eventually ended by that same body (Brown v. Board of Ed.). But to say that every ruling of the Court is a gem is rediculious.

As I said before, and you've failed to address, the Constitution strengthened the bonds of the nation, clearing up the looseness inherent in the articles of confederation. Otherwise, what was the point of the Constitution? If the AoC was acceptable to the states, why would they agree to an even stronger bond?

Well, yes, the AoC was a weak attempt at a national compact. The Constitution definatly was a step up. It's an amazing piece of 18th century thinking.

We live in the 21st century.

The Civil War was in the 19th.

Do you see an issue with this?

 

[Loss Leader]

First time Habeus Corpus (again, courtesy A. Lincoln) was suspended.

I think this was found to be unconstitutional in the circuit court and, later, unconstitutional as applied by the Supreme Court.

But, all of the "facts" on your list are so muddled that it's hardly worth getting into.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I think this was found to be unconstitutional in the circuit court and, later, unconstitutional as applied by the Supreme Court.

But, all of the "facts" on your list are so muddled that it's hardly worth getting into.

Sorta. IIRC, it was later found constitutional somewhere but the book I have only sorta says when it was. One second.

Aha.

In February 1864 the Supreme Court decided that it had no power to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a military commission (Ex parte Vallandigham, 1 Wallace, 243).Clement_Vallandigham^WP

It's more it was found valid in certain circumstances.

 

[drkitten]

I think this was found to be unconstitutional in the circuit court and, later, unconstitutional as applied by the Supreme Court.

I don't think so.

There was a legitimate constitutional issue that was later dropped. Specifically, who has the power to suspend habeas corpus? It's an Article I power, so it should be the sort of thing that can only be done by Congressional action, not by the Executive.

Lincoln actually suspended it several times in several areas; the first in 1861, on his own authority. This provoked a legitimate challenge, which was rendered moot when Congress passed an act the next year retroactively authorizing the suspension.

 

[kmortis]

I don't think so.

There was a legitimate constitutional issue that was later dropped. Specifically, who has the power to suspend habeas corpus? It's an Article I power, so it should be the sort of thing that can only be done by Congressional action, not by the Executive.

Lincoln actually suspended it several times in several areas; the first in 1861, on his own authority. This provoked a legitimate challenge, which was rendered moot when Congress passed an act the next year retroactively authorizing the suspension.

Isn't there something about ex-post facto laws? How can they retroactively authorize the suspension of a constitutionally protected right? I could see the suspension of it, by the act of Congress prior to the suspension, but afterwards?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Fascinating how embedded the Victor's narrative remains in the American psyche.

With Yugoslavia, as far as I understand there was no provision for Croatia and Bosnia to unilaterally leave the Yugoslavia Federation.

Was Slobodan Milosevic the Abraham Lincoln of the 20th century

 

[Codee]

No they were not wrong to cede. It was wrong to attack them. The federation (even though 'federal' make zero appearances in the const.) is a union. If someone does not like to be part of a voluntary organization, they should be able to leave.

The point was made that the south wanted out for reasons of slavery. Well is was not long before the civil war, 80 years, that we had the articles of confederation because pretty much everyone knew that a central government would be evil and despotic.

The fed is evil, despotic.

Must I remind you that it was the UNION federal courts that ruled in Dread Scott? Your precious federal government that declared war on the states was the same party that ruled that slavery was AOK for the south to use.

 

[TraneWreck]

Isn't there something about ex-post facto laws? How can they retroactively authorize the suspension of a constitutionally protected right? I could see the suspension of it, by the act of Congress prior to the suspension, but afterwards?

The prohibition of ex-post facto protects people from having legal behavior later turned illegal. Congress can't pass a law to criminalize legal actions that have already occured.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus which, the SC found, was illegal at the time. Congress gave its approval, making it legal. They're literally opposite situation.

legal->illegal=ex post facto

Illegal->legal=different situation.

 

[kmortis]

The prohibition of ex-post facto protects people from having legal behavior later turned illegal. Congress can't pass a law to criminalize legal actions that have already occured.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus which, the SC found, was illegal at the time. Congress gave its approval, making it legal. They're literally opposite situation.

legal->illegal=ex post facto

Illegal->legal=different situation.

OK, thanks.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

No they were not wrong to cede. It was wrong to attack them. The federation (even though 'federal' make zero appearances in the const.) is a union. If someone does not like to be part of a voluntary organization, they should be able to leave.

The point was made that the south wanted out for reasons of slavery. Well is was not long before the civil war, 80 years, that we had the articles of confederation because pretty much everyone knew that a central government would be evil and despotic.

The fed is evil, despotic.

Must I remind you that it was the UNION federal courts that ruled in Dread Scott? Your precious federal government that declared war on the states was the same party that ruled that slavery was AOK for the south to use.

Oh, look, we have conflation and generalization fallacies here.

The judge who ruled in Dred Scott was Taney. In the 1850's. The second after the ruling was released all of the Republican party leaders attacked him.

(It also led to a reason why Seward was considered too radical by Democrats - he claimed that Taney subverted liberty at Buchanan's urging, while most moderate Republicans were just ERK because their (at the time) main position was that slavery was on the road to extinction (It's also a factor according to Goodwin in Lincoln paying attention to national politics again))

See, I kinda wish you'd pay attention to the fact that in 1860 - it was the first time the Republicans were really a national party (excluding the South, which by that time (the 1850's kinda tore apart most of the bonds of union) was very Democratic - even then, it *split the national Democratic party*).

ETA: Wrong colors, memory mix up. Removed

 

[Loss Leader]

If someone does not like to be part of a voluntary organization, they should be able to leave.

But why should that "someone" be an entire state? If Steve or Gary didn't like the way the country was going, they were and remain free to leave. So were all of the southerners who disagreed with the election of Lincoln.

Instead, a very small group of white men (the state legislatures) who had been elected by only white men made that decision. Even if every white man who voted in the south was for secession, not a single white woman or person of color had a say in it (let alone those men who didn't vote).

So, why should such a small minority be allowed to remove an entire state from the union? And what exactly is so magical about state borders that they're how one decides what political unit can or cannot secede?

Not one single state that participated in the Civil War had ever been a sovereign nation (with maybe the possible exception of Texas, although I personally don't buy it). From what, then, did that sovereignty emerge?

Must I remind you that it was the UNION federal courts that ruled in Dread Scott? Your precious federal government that declared war on the states was the same party that ruled that slavery was AOK for the south to use.

1) The Confederacy declared war on the US, not the other way around.

2) Dred Scott was decided before the Civil War. What version of the rulebook are you using that says people are not allowed to think wrongly, screw up, learn from it and change their minds?

3) Welcome to the forum.

 

[little grey rabbit]

1) The Confederacy declared war on the US, not the other way around.
.

The United States wouldnt declare war because they did not recognise the confederacy.

The Confederacy did open fire on Fort Sumter in an area deep in their territory that they considered sovereign. No Union soldier died from this, although one person did get his eyebrows burnt off, which can be very nasty.

Nasty, but not sufficient grounds for commencing an invasion that if it occurred today would be considered genocidal.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

The United States wouldnt declare war because they did not recognise the confederacy.

The Confederacy did open fire on Fort Sumter in an area deep in their territory that they considered sovereign. No Union soldier died from this, although one person did get his eyebrows burnt off, which can be very nasty.

But it was federal property which ... yeah. (Also, they declared a rebellion)

Nasty, but not sufficient grounds for commencing an invasion that if it occurred today would be considered genocidal.

Er... What? There was a large death toll, true, but when you declare war, yous take your chances.

 

[little grey rabbit]

But it was federal property which ... yeah. (Also, they declared a rebellion)



Er... What? There was a large death toll, true, but when you declare war, yous take your chances.

Tell that to Croatia and Bosnia.

There were plenty of federal bases in what they claimed as their sovereign territory.
When did the Confederacy declare war? It certainly wasnt at Fort Sumter.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

a) I don't really /care/ about Croatia/Bosnia vis a vis the civil war
b) Yes. Yes it did. After Lincoln warned them they were resupplying the base they attacked.

 

[little grey rabbit]

a) I don't really /care/ about Croatia/Bosnia vis a vis the civil war
b) Yes. Yes it did. After Lincoln warned them they were resupplying the base they attacked.

Its quite a relevant example though, you are claiming that in the Civil War federal territory in seceding states should be inviolate, but don't believe that should be the case in the break-up of Yugoslavia.

For the record, the Federal army of Yugoslavia agreed very early after declarations of independence to withdraw from the bases and hand them over.

Your second point, that firing on Fort Sumter was a declaration of war is wrong. It is a hostile act and could be viewed as an act of war, but it is not a declaration of war.
There have been plenty of cases of armed forces firing on other nations without ever an declaration of war taking place or a formal war resulting.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Its quite a relevant example though, you are claiming that in the Civil War federal territory in seceding states should be inviolate, but don't believe that should be the case in the break-up of Yugoslavia.

For the record, the Federal army of Yugoslavia agreed very early after declarations of independence to withdraw from the bases and hand them over.

.... Yes, the twocases are entirely similar.

Your second point, that firing on Fort Sumter was a declaration of war is wrong. It is a hostile act and could be viewed as an act of war, but it is not a declaration of war.
There have been plenty of cases of armed forces firing on other nations without ever an declaration of war taking place or a formal war resulting.

That is a very strange argument you have there. It's like you're redefining the relationship between acts and declarations of war..