Secession or Insurrection?

[Southern Cal]

Having recently studied closely the chronology leading up the the "War between the States", I found that, with the exception of South Carolina, most of the Southern States seized federal property before seceding. Here is a brief timeline:

December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes odinance of secession.

December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston to from Fort Moultire to Fort Sumter. South Carolina State Militia takes possession of Fort Moultrie.

January 3, 1861: Georgia seizes Federal Fort Pulaski.

January 4, 1861: Alabama seizes Federal arsenal at Mount Vernon.

January 5, 1861: Alabama seizes Federal Forts Morgan and Gaines.

January 6, 1861: Florida seizes Federal Apalachicola arsenal.

January 7, 1861: Florida seizes Federal Fort Marion.

January 8, 1861: Floridians foiled in attempt to seize Federal Fort Barrancas.

January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.

January 9, 1861: "Star of the West" fired on in Charleston Harbor by South Carolina forces.

January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.

January 10, 1861: Louisiana seizes Federal Forts Jackson and St. Philip, and U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge.

January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.

January 11, 1861: Louisiana seizes Unites States Marine Hospital.

January 14, 1861: Louisiana seizes Federal Fort Pike.

January 19, 1861: Georgia secedes.

January 26, 1861: Louisiana secedes.

February 1, 1861: Texas secedes

February 8, 1861: Arkansas seizes Federal Arsenal at Little Rock.

February 12, 1861: Arkansas seizes U.S. Ordnance Dept. stores at Napoleon.

February 18, 1861: Jefferson Davis Inaugurated as President of the Confederate States of America.

March 4, 1861: Abraham Lincoln inaugurated as 16th President of the United States.

April 12, 1861: Fort Sumter fired on by Confederate forces.

From the above historical record, one can see that: while still legally and officially part of the United States, while a Democrat President with Southern sympathies occupied the White House, while the U.S. Congress was in session, and while the federal court were operating, the State Militias or bands of armed men sanctioned by the states mentioned above, seized Federal property. These acts violated United States law, since these individual states were still part of the U.S. when these acts occurred, seceding only later. Am I wrong, or do these acts constitute armed insurrection by individual States against the United States? Didn't armed insurrection oblige President Buchanan and later, President Lincoln, to take action as Chief Executive to enforce the law?

Source: The American Civil War Home Page

[flattop32355]

Not wanting to be flippant, but in the end, it may be a case of "potato" or "patato". These states ultimate goal at the time was to secede from the Union, regardless of the timing of the seizures. I would agree that, without that goal, it would be insurrection.

[Frenchie]

The timing is important, your attempt to dismiss it notwithstanding. What the states intended to do is irrelevant. The law judges actions, not intentions. What the Southern states did was insurrection, it was rebellion, and to quote Abbie Hoffman, "The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it." They chose to put the issue to a test of arms and they lost.

[Phil]

The timing is irrelevant because it wouldn't have affected the outcome. Secession in itself was considered to be an act of rebellion, and whether the property was seized before or after the unrecognized act of secession is immaterial.

[Huck Finn]

I thought all of this was settled. Seems to me that facts are facts, history is debatable. Just my $.02.

[8th TexCav]

Frenchie,

Be careful once you use the term law. The law can hold the individuals who participated in those in the insurrections as well as those who ordered it responsible for their actions but it does not give the president the authority to declare war on an entire state or region. I agree that those who carried out the seizures should have been held criminally responsible for their acts. Not all states participated in these acts prior to seceding.

Once the states held conventions and voted for secession, the federal government no longer had legal standing to compel them to remain in the Union. The ratification of the Constitution was done by state. No where does it state that a state may not withdrawal. Since it is not stated, it cannot be implied or assumed.

State’s Rights was the banner that was used for the argument that the Confederacy used to justify secession. It was and is a good argument that I would love to see argued by more knowledgeable people than myself in law school but do not let us kid ourselves as to the underlying force that drove all of this, slavery.

I believe in State’s Rights. In theory, the South had the absolute right to secede. The crimes committed prior to a formal vote by the state to secede are just that, crimes. I also believe that the president acted without Constitutional authority to force the seceding states back into the Union.

Sorry for being long winded on this one.

[Southern Cal]

I'm not sure I follow the idea that criminal charges should have been filed against those responsible for seizure of Federal property. Since State Militias in most of the cases were ordered to seize federal property in the States mentioned above, I'm not sure exactly who should have been held criminally responsible for such crimes, or how such charges could have been brought forth and prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney and the Federal courts once a State had seceded, since the seceding states maintained they were sovereign entities no longer under U.S. jurisdiction.

[ScottWashburn]

I believe in State’s Rights. In theory, the South had the absolute right to secede. The crimes committed prior to a formal vote by the state to secede are just that, crimes. I also believe that the president acted without Constitutional authority to force the seceding states back into the Union.

I agree that at the time secession was perfectly legal, but if we accept that reasoning then we also have to accept that the remainder of the United States also had a perfectly legal right to conquer the new Confederacy and re-integrate it into the Union (we've picked up quite a bit real estate over the years in this manner, after all). But somehow I don't think that the legality of their positions concerned the people of the time a great deal :)

[Regular3]

The ratification of the Constitution was done by state. No where does it state that a state may not withdrawal. Since it is not stated, it cannot be implied or assumed.That's an interesting argument, even after 175 years (John C. Calhoun first threatened secession over nullification during the Jackson administration - Funny about how so much trouble can be traced to South Carolina ;) ) ... But of course the counter to that is that neither was any right of secession stated in the Constitution, so how could that be implied or assumed?

It would have been interesting to see what Lincoln would have done had the seceded states simply sat tight rather than driving away the Star of the West or firing on Fort Sumter. The legality of secession had not been confirmed or denied - But attacking U.S. installations and military personnel was an act of war no matter how you slice it, and seizure of Federal property was insurrection (they got John Brown for attempting to seize the Federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry) no matter how you slice that, and it would have taken a pretty poor excuse for a President to just let those things slide.

[jthlmnn]

State’s Rights was the banner that was used for the argument that the Confederacy used to justify secession. It was and is a good argument that I would love to see argued by more knowledgeable people than myself in law school but do not let us kid ourselves as to the underlying force that drove all of this, slavery.

I believe in State’s Rights. In theory, the South had the absolute right to secede. The crimes committed prior to a formal vote by the state to secede are just that, crimes. I also believe that the president acted without Constitutional authority to force the seceding states back into the Union.


This was argued in another thread a short while back (probably several before that, as well). I suggest a perusal of those postings as a starting point regarding the period arguments as to whether any state had a "right" to secede and the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White.

http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4010&page=23

[Remise]

Tamato?

B.C. Milligan
Cheek to Cheek Mess

[Frenchie]

Commenting on various points:

No one at any time "declared war" on the rebellious states, nor was it necessary to do so. Invading a foreign nation or defending one's own territory from an invasion from outside one's borders are not at all the same as suppressing an uprising from within. And it's a fact that no declaration of war was made before the USA got involved in most of the conflicts in our history.

The entity calling itself the Confederate States of America was never a sovereign nation; it was a group of States of the Union that rose up in armed insurrection against their own government (and then spent most of the next four years rebelling against the government they had illegitimately formed, but that's a whole 'nuther matter).

New England was the first area of the country to threaten secession from the Union and it should surprise no one that the epicenter of the trouble was in Boston.

The Southern states had as a matter of course the right to try to secede; see Abbie Hoffman's quote earlier in this thread.

[tompritchett]

But of course the counter to that is that neither was any right of secession stated in the Constitution, so how could that be implied or assumed?

Nor was it specifically precluded. That in turn allowed some to interpret that a state, under the 10th Amendment, the right to void it nullification of the Constitution and thereby secede. Going into the 1860's this question of the legality of secession was still a very open question with active arguments on both sides. In fact, it is my understanding that one of the more scholarly works arguing for the right of secession was actually part of the required reading list of West Point prior to the Civil War.

[Southern Cal]

Sorry, I didn't mean to duplicate a previous thread but was more interested in knowing what other's opinions are about Southern states seizing Federal property, while still part of the United States and governed under existing U.S. laws, and what a President was supposed to do about it.

The point made above about John Brown being executed for attempting by armed force to occupy the U.S. arsenal at Harper's Ferry is very interesting. Were the Governors of States, State Legislatures, or State Militias and their officers, more exempt than John Brown, for acts of armed seizure of Federal property, while they were still part of the United States?

[tompritchett]

Sorry, I didn't mean to duplicate a previous thread but was more interested in knowing what other's opinions are about Southern states seizing Federal property, while still part of the United States and governed under existing U.S. laws, and what a President was supposed to do about it.

When the property was seized relative to the secession would be the key point here. Clearly any property seized after a secession becomes a sovereignty issue that relates back to the legality of the secession itself. However seizures made before any declaration of secession, such as you outlined in your initial post, definitely muddies the water from a legal point of view.

[ScottWashburn]

Yes, I think what many people in the South forgot at the time (and what quite a few forget today) is that even if secession is legal, it does not unmake the United States. That nation still exists and any and all property it owned before it still owns along with whatever treaties, laws, rights and obligations it had. So all of the federal forts and arsenals are still US property and US territory. Obviously if the separation had become permanent those would have been items that would have had to be dealt with by negotiations.

One of the interesting things to speculate on is how the western territories would have affected things if the South had managed to secede peacefully in 1861. Legally, the South would have ceded any and all claims on the western territories. All of those would still be US property. But it was the fate of those territories, whether they were to be slave or free, that was a major factor in precipitating the crisis of 1860 which brought about secession. Would the South have just given up all that land in return for a peaceful separation? Somehow I doubt it. Even if secession had been peacefully carried out in 1861 I doubt that the peace would have lasted very long!

[Willow Branch]

Yes, I think what many people in the South forgot at the time (and what quite a few forget today) is that even if secession is legal, it does not unmake the United States. That nation still exists and any and all property it owned before it still owns along with whatever treaties, laws, rights and obligations it had. So all of the federal forts and arsenals are still US property and US territory. Obviously if the separation had become permanent those would have been items that would have had to be dealt with by negotiations.


So I in your line of thinking, Virginia still owns West Virginia? :shock:

Unless I misunderstood Bud Robertson at one of his presentations, there is a lawsuit pending with four counties in West Virginia attempting to rejoin Virginia.

Sorry if I just muddied the water.:confused:

[ScottWashburn]

So I in your line of thinking, Virginia still owns West Virginia? :shock:

I'm sure the people of Virginia thought so at the time :) But of course once the war began, the North was free to dispose of any territory it controlled however it wished--including creating new states. Technically the North would have had the power (both physically and legally) to remake the South however it pleased as far as states and state boundaries went. They were remarkably charitable to leave things pretty much as they were.

[tompritchett]

So all of the federal forts and arsenals are still US property and US territory. Obviously if the separation had become permanent those would have been items that would have had to be dealt with by negotiations.

Again this is where the sovereignty issue comes into play. It was Federal property when the state still belonged to the U.S. but apparently many Southerners felt that when their states nullified their ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the actual legal means that most states used to secede, they were also nullifying any right that the Federal government had to lay claim on property contained within their state. However, I do agree that negotiations should have been used by the Confederacy rather than force for those locations that were not readily surrendered by the occupying Federal troops (i.e., Ft. Sumter). But then it is hard to negotiate with a President who refuses to recognize that you are now a separate and equal entity rather than a subordinate state. I know that I may seem to be splitting hairs now but back then these were the very issues that were propelling the two sides to war.

[Southern Cal]

I think that President Buchanan was still in office when the several Forts and other Federal property was seized, before particular southern States seceded. Through Lincoln's intermediaries in Congress, Confederate leaders were approached to negotiate the peaceful return to the Union. Southern leaders made five demands (see McPherson "Battle Cry of Freedom"): 1) Reduce the Tariff on goods imported to the South, 2) Modify the Navigation Acts that allowed Federal duties and imposts generated primarily by southern states to pay for improvements primarily to northen ports, 3) Strictly Enforce the Fugitive Slave Act in northern states, 4) (Cannot remember the fourth condition), 5) Recognize the Southern State's rights of their citizens to take their property (meaning slaves) into all U.S. territories. Lincoln acceded to all the southern demands except the demand to extend slavery (see writings of Sen. Robert Toombs, Georgia?). Neither the Confederate leadership nor Lincoln would compromise on this point. I guess that by this point the position of the leaders of the Confederacy was all or nothing concerning negotiations. The Vice President of the CSA, Alexander Stephens, in his "Cornerstone Speech", stated that among the various grievances the South had against the North, the specific issue of extending slavery into the territories was the immediate cause of open hostilities.

[Pvt Schnapps]

I read a goodly portion of Jefferson Davis's memoirs and was much taken by his argument for the constitution correctness of seccession and South Carolina's right to take back Fort Sumter.

It was only later that I realized that he had omitted from his hundreds of pages of self-justification an explanation of why, if he and his colleagues were so transparently right about seccession, the matter could not have been put to a vote in congress before they started seizing federal property. Nor did he explain why the question of who owned that fort could not have been worked out in court, or through arbitration.

Even the simple statement that "such and such a state secceeded" begs, as I've said before, the question of who in that state was making the decision. In South Carolina and Mississippi, about four out of every seven inhabitants were slaves. In Alabama, four out of nine were slaves, and there were enough unionists among the whites to provide Sherman with a regiment of cavalry. And as soon as the ink dried on Lee and Johnston's surrender documents, the southern armies were on their way home, more than content to hang up the cause once and for all.

Any attempt to argue for the legality of seccession seems moot when its proponents showed so little confidence in its legality at the time.

[tompritchett]

Any attempt to argue for the legality of seccession seems moot when its proponents showed so little confidence in its legality at the time.

Could you further elaborate on this point. If you are referring to only the whites being involved in the decision making process, then you must also remember that the denial of blacks the right to vote was not unique to the South. Many Northern blacks did not receive the full rights of citizenship until the Reconstruction.

[Sgt_Pepper]

And women did not vote at all.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Of course slaves didn't vote at all, but since they made up the majority of the population in South Carolina, I think any statement along the lines of "South Carolina decided to leave," "voted to leave," etc. -- to the extent that it implies an entire state as opposed to the sliver of population that actually had a say in the matter -- is an egregious misrepresentation of reality.

As far as the sentence you quoted, it just seems to me that if Jefferson Davis had really believed all the legalistic statements he made after the war about seccession, he would have tried them out with his fellow legislators or in the courts before the shooting started. If it was such a clear legal matter, then it shouldn't have been necessary to call out the militia and seize federal arsenals before Lincoln even took office.

Similarly, after the war, if anyone really believed in the right of seccession they might have continued the fight in the same courts and legislature, or at least have taken it up again after a decent interval. But no, the vast majority of soldiers went back to their homes and occupations and pretty much sucked it up like Sam Watkins ("we can laugh now at the absurd notion of there being a north and a south").

I mean, it just doesn't look like anyone really believed in the legality of seccession to begin with. Because if they did, they had a lot of legal avenues to try first before going to war, and after the war they wouldn't have been so relieved to lay it aside like the temporary madness it was.

[Major Duane]

"...funny how much trouble can be traced to South Carolina."

True to some extent, but remember that five New England states threatened secession in late 1814-early 1815 at the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812. Of course, they looked like idiots when news of the Battle of New Orleans arrived, and the Federalist Party died shortly thereafter.

John Adams
South Carolina resident (but not a native ;)

[flattop32355]

Of course slaves didn't vote at all, but since they made up the majority of the population in South Carolina, I think any statement along the lines of "South Carolina decided to leave," "voted to leave," etc. -- to the extent that it implies an entire state as opposed to the sliver of population that actually had a say in the matter -- is an egregious misrepresentation of reality.

By today's standards, I'd agree. However, at the time, those slaves were not "people", but "property". Because of that status, they only counted as population in the Southern state's convoluted logic that increased their number of members in the House of Representatives.

The planter class and its associated supports (politicians, businessmen, etc) ran the show in most, if not all, of those states, not unlike the Lords of England, dragging everyone else with them willing or not.

[icdux1]

quite an interesting topic. the basic concept and original intent of the founding fathers that state rights always trump fedral power being that if a state became opressive you could simply move to another state. this was not possible should the reverse occur, so what other option but sucession?? since the fed`s fully intended to use force, {strictly phrobited by the us consitution} what other option but to seize their means{federal troops and forts} to do so?? that LINCON trampled the us constitution is quite evident, federal income tax comes to mind as does seizure of privately held property without compensation, and printed as opposed to "coined" money.... just my opinions. regards dux

[Pvt Schnapps]

"By today's standards, I'd agree. "

Well, that's nice :) But you probably won't be too surprised to learn that I picked that demographic tidbit up from a nineteenth century source:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/11/07.htm

The analysis of US Census data starts about half a dozen paragraphs in.

Dux, without sourcing any of your claims about the constitutionality of, among other things, the income tax (the Supreme Court has disagreed, several times) and paper money, it's hard to take your other statements seriously.

To say that the federal government fully intended to use force, and had to be anticipated by the confederacy, implies a degree of preparation by the federals, and of clairvoyance by the rebels, that historians have -- to put it mildly -- not generally supported. Excellent works on the deplorable lack of federal military capacity at the beginning of the war include Meneely's "The War Department, 1861" and Shannon's "The Organization and Administration of the Union Army 1861-1865."

[icdux1]

To say that the federal government fully intended to use force, and had to be anticipated by the confederacy, implies a degree of preparation by the federals, and of clairvoyance by the rebels


here in kentucky we call it common sense, not clairvoyance.
if you have words with your neighbor out by the woodpile, surely you have the common sense to stand between him and the ax.
i am new here and will not argue the us constitution with you, but surely you will admit that the federal govt. pays little mind to it??
a little reasearch will show the first u.s. president to clearly violate it to be ???? :D again my opinion regards dux

[flattop32355]

i am new here and will not argue the us constitution with you, but surely you will admit that the federal govt. pays little mind to it??
a little reasearch will show the first u.s. president to clearly violate it to be ???? :D again my opinion regards dux

By that logic, the first would have been Thomas Jefferson, who agreed to the Louisiana Purchase. There was much opinion that the federal government had no right to do so by law.

Some others might suggest G. Washington, for supression during the Whiskey Rebellion.

Opinions differ on Lincoln as well: Was he a tyrant or a preserver of the Union? I, for one, am grateful that he succeeded and we did not separate.

[Pvt Schnapps]

here in kentucky we call it common sense, not clairvoyance.
if you have words with your neighbor out by the woodpile, surely you have the common sense to stand between him and the ax.
i am new here and will not argue the us constitution with you, but surely you will admit that the federal govt. pays little mind to it??
a little reasearch will show the first u.s. president to clearly violate it to be ???? :D again my opinion regards dux

OK, friend -- I won't argue with you. I don't agree that the federal government doesn't pay much mind to the constitution, but if that's basic to your argument, going back and forth online will just tick us both off. It's a lot better to do that sort of thing in person over a beer. :) See you in the field!

[8th TexCav]

Good evening. I have been away from the thread for a few days while attending a nice little living history so I did not get a chance to clarify my statement earlier regarding the seizure of federal property prior to secession. I do not think that secession is illegal. Many at the time did not as many do today. That was not my point and I apologize for not making it more clearly before. I was tired and headed to bed (no excuse).

The point that I tried to make was that the seizing of federal property prior to secession was clearly illegal and those who ordered it and participated in it should have been prosecuted, if not before the war, then after.

I have seen an argument regarding the intent as well as the interpretation of the Constitution in the thread that I am sure that I am responsible for it. I accept that for having it go that way. One thing to keep in mind is that there is a precedent to be followed in this country for seizing the “enemy’s” military property before formal declaration if one remembers our own Revolution. Just a thought to keep in mind.

[jthlmnn]

The topic of constitutionality was probably inevitable, and therefore not your fault. (At least in my opinion.) I may enter more on that topic another time. For now, a return to the crux of your original post. Whether one believes that secession was legal or not, seizing federal property prior to secession was a bad PR move, at best. At worst, it legitimized the employment of federal force to regain control of said property, prosecute the perpetrators, and punish them (up to and including hanging). The case of John Brown at the Harper's Ferry arsenal has already been cited. It is entirely to the point and quite timely. Federal troops were called out (led by Robert E. Lee), the insurrection suppressed, and Brown was hung. The same would apply in the situations you illustrated in your opening post. Those folks could have, and in other countries would have, been hung as soon as they were apprehended. (A fact our Founders were painfully aware of during the Revolution/Rebellion against Great Britain, as evidenced by the Ben Franklin quotation, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.")

For your consideration,

[tompritchett]

Whether one believes that secession was legal or not, seizing federal property prior to secession was a bad PR move, at best.

Even using force to seize federal property from troops determined not to surrender it can turn out to be a majot PR move. Just look what happened when the South used force to get Maj. Anderson to surrender Ft. Sumter.

[Capt Terry]

You know I have thought about this question many times and I keep coming back to the fact it was a question of basic liberty. THe south had every right to leave the union. In explaining this I will simply put it this way. The union does not have a right to grant or, without due process, take away freedom. The union is supposed to protect our rights. When a government, in this case by legislative or popular vote, votes to leave a country, I believe it has a GOD given right to do so, because that the right over rules the central government's authority.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness....See secession was adopted through the fundemental practice of liberty, and that would be "voting".
Because it employed the force of arms, the federal government ignored the "unalienable rights" of southerners. I think that is key, "unalienable rights granted by our creator." The Union grants no rights, but is supposed to protect those rights. Like it or not, the Union overstepped its' authority
and killed people that exercised voting. It was not treason, it was selecting a new course for states and a new nation. The South had a God-given right to do so.

[creel]

I did not read all the above post, however, if one reads "The rise and fall" by Jeferrson Davis, he outlines the orginal post and the legality of federal installations and the States right to "re-claim" those properties as those properties were in, donated by and the property of "the people" of those States.

[Jim of the SRR]

I don't agree that the federal government doesn't pay much mind to the constitution, but if that's basic to your argument, going back and forth online will just tick us both off.

The Federal government has violated our Constitutional liberties before the ink was dry at the end of the Constitutional convention.

Isn't insurrection and revolution a foregone conclusion in every empire? Power corrupts and corrupts completely. Our Founding Fathers knew this and wrote the Constitution to protect us from tyrants. They even knew that they, as humans, were also subject to this corruption and wanted guarentted protections from even themselves.
At what point is insurrection and revolution ACTUALLY the CORRECT course of action? Thomas Jefferson stated, "When all peaceful means fail to regain our liberties, the People have the right to revolt."
Now I don't agree with the way the South handled the political turmoil of the early-mid 19th century. However, I do believe they did have justifiable grievances regarding the Federal government violating the 10th amendment.
If you don't think our current government is just a corrupt, power-drunk cabal then you are fooling yourself. We can blame ourselves for electing them. The Consitution is just a mere speed-bump for them and they ride over it everyday. So, at what point is a Revolutionary actually a Patriot? Are you letting our Federal government define that for you? Are you a sheep or a free man who loves REAL liberty?

Benjamin Franklin knew this would happen when he stated, "You have a Republic, if you can keep it!"

Regards,
Jim Butler

[ScottWashburn]

The problem with saying that 'God-given rights' allow the states to secede is that the question then becomes: where does it end? There's nothing sacred about the concept of the state, so does that mean the counties have a right to secede from the states (as West Virginia basically did)? How about the towns from the counties? People from their towns? Each man a state unto himself with his own set of laws? Tends to get a little messy after a while :)

The United States was created in order to "form a more perfect union". The Founders recognized that a collection of small independent states could not long survive in the world that existed in the late Eighteenth Century. The founders tried to build a government with the maximum in liberty and the minimum of oppression.

And Lincoln got it exactly right in his Gettysburg Address when he said that the war was "testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure". Any system of government demands a degree of compromise. Not everyone can have everything they want all of the time. Unfortunately, in 1860 the South didn't get what they wanted and rather than try to work within the system they decided to take their ball and go home. The North did not want to see the Union broken up because of some poor losers. They realized that to have North America split up into a bunch of squabbling states would have been a disaster so they took steps to stop it. The South may have had legality on their side, but the North took the steps that were right. We can all be grateful that they did.

[Picket Post]

I will use the dictionary to solve this debate!

insurrection: the act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constitueted government

secede: to withdraw formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance.

The vote to "leave" the union meets the definition of secede. Once the states voted to secede, per definition they withdrew from the alliance. Hence, the war was not a "revolt against civil authority" since the act of secession elliminated the Federal Government as a civil authority to those who left the alliance.


This opinion is based on the definitions of the words moreso than opinion. This might as well be a "less filling, tastes great" arguement

[Capt Terry]

I'm sorry, but no man-made institution should ever dictate to anyone unless they as a majority consent to be dictated to. Liberty is more important than any union. The union had no right to put itself above those "God-given rights." In my estimation, that's where the argument for the union above all else, loses.

We had to right to break away from England and we did. The South had a right to vote and break away from the Union, it did and many southerners died. Killed for their desire to be a seperate country, that's it, plain and simple.

Doesn't seem like such a crime to me that warrants armed invasion.

[sbl]

Terry,

"...The South had a God-given right to do so..." Involving God in this question just isn't the answer as I suspect that many folks in the North and the Federal govt. felt the same way about keeping the South in the Union.

[Capt Terry]

I'm sure northerners did think God was on their side, but in this case their right to be self governed as they saw it was not threatened. It was status-quo for them. Not so in the South. King George thought he was right as well.

The union was based on the belief in those God-given rights, so how did it justify ignoring them when the issue of secession came to a head? If those God-given rights are not important, then the union was established on a falsehood.

[ScottWashburn]

We had to right to break away from England and we did. The South had a right to vote and break away from the Union, it did and many southerners died. Killed for their desire to be a seperate country, that's it, plain and simple.

Well, it's not quite so plain or so simple. By the time that the new United States made the decision to break away from England they had been suffering from various oppressions for years (taxation without representation, etc.) and armed conflict had been going on for over a year. The threat from England was real and immediate and blood was being spilled.

At the time that South Carolina seceded from the Union what oppressions had she been suffering? What blood had been spilled? None that I'm aware of. Rich South Carolinians didn't like the tarrifs, of course, but they had been lawfully enacted by a government which Southerners had dominated since the beginning. And many Southerners in the western states liked the tarrif since it paid for useful things like the Army which kept the Indians at bay. Hardly enough reason to secede. No, South Carolina seceded because Lincoln and the Republicans had been elected and they were afraid of what Lincoln MIGHT do. Lincoln and the Republicans weren't even in office yet. They hadn't done a thing. The only thing they were even threatening to do was restrict the expansion of slavery into the western territories. The vast majority of Republicans, including Lincoln, had pledged not to interfere with the internal workings of any of the Southern states, including the institution of slavery.

So nothing had been done to South Carolina, nothing was being threatened and yet a group of what today we would term "special interests" (i.e. the slaveholders) without even attempting to negotiate or work within Congress pulled South Carolina out of the Union, plunged us into Civil War and brought about the deaths of 619,000 Americans. It might not have been illegal, but it was certainly a crime.

[Pvt Schnapps]

I'm sorry, but no man-made institution should ever dictate to anyone unless they as a majority consent to be dictated to.

Um, would that include the majority of the inhabitants of South Carolina in 1861?

[Malingerer]

Um, would that include the majority of the inhabitants of South Carolina in 1861?
Schnapps,
It's not very nice to go busting in on someone's fantasy life with ironic remarks about people fighting for their God-given freedoms while setting up a country that deliberatley denies those freedoms to others. Not very nice at all.

[Capt Terry]

The Northern dominated Congress was galvanized against the south. There is no way any legislation that in anyway benefited the south was goning to pass. Therefore secession. No choice.

And I believe it was that plain and simple.

[tompritchett]

No, South Carolina seceded because Lincoln and the Republicans had been elected and they were afraid of what Lincoln MIGHT do. Lincoln and the Republicans weren't even in office yet. They hadn't done a thing. The only thing they were even threatening to do was restrict the expansion of slavery into the western territories. The vast majority of Republicans, including Lincoln, had pledged not to interfere with the internal workings of any of the Southern states, including the institution of slavery.

Time has limited my ability to participate in this intellectual exchange, but I definitely wanted to respond to this one. You are very right about the intents of Lincoln and the majority of the Republicans, but, unfortunately, very wrong about the perceptions of most of the Southerners. For various reasons including the possible deliberate distortions of the Ultras and the extreme vocalism of the more rabid abolitionists, most Southerners viewed the election of a Republican administration as a direct and immediate threat to the very institution of slavery not only in the new territories but also in the existing slave states. One only has to read the various speeches and letters of the secessionist commissioners to see how real this fear was. Furthermore, Southerners truly believed that the abolitionists would also be successful in making the freed blacks legal equals to whites in all matters - something that in reality the North was not ready for either. I personally think that this last issue was particularly key in generating Southern support for secession because only slightly less than a third of all Southern states owned slaves. Remember, we have history to teach us what a minority influence the true abolitionists had in the Republican party while most Southerners had little to no experience traveling outside their immediate region and such had little exposure to the full spectrum of Northern opinions.

[ScottWashburn]

The Northern dominated Congress was galvanized against the south. There is no way any legislation that in anyway benefited the south was goning to pass. Therefore secession. No choice.

And I believe it was that plain and simple.

Ah yes, that same Northern dominated congress which tolerated the 3/5 rule which made a Southern vote count for more than a Northern vote. The same congress which allowed the South to crush any opposition or even open debate on the issue of slavery by censorship of the mails, suppression of a free press, and the Gag Rule which revoked the right of petition guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. Combined with the Southern dominated Supreme Court who's Dred Scott decision effectively said that the Free States had no right to keep slaves out (how's that for States' Rights?) it's little wonder that the North became "galvanized against the south". The election of 1860 was a Northern revolt against *Southern* oppression. The North demanded that the South play by the same rules that it did. The Southern leaders were too attached to their special privilages to tolerate that. So they brought about secession by the same methods they had used hold on to power for so long (did you know that the 3/5 rule applied in the state legislatures, too? The Virginia vote on secession would have failed without that little detail).

Secession was not their only option.

[tompritchett]

(did you know that the 3/5 rule applied in the state legislatures, too? The Virginia vote on secession would have failed without that little detail).

Maybe so, but the secession ordinance was ratified by popular vote in Virginia. Yes there were counties in Virginia where the vote was against secession (the majority of those in now West Virginia and a few in current Virginia) but in the majority of the counties the popular vote was for secession and the overall majority of the voters voted for secession.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Not to downplay the larger issues, but I've increasingly come to believe that while the war was caused by our inability to resolve the inherent contradiction of slavery in a republic, most soldiers fought for their communities.

They joined the local company and marched off with the local slogans of the day because a man's interests were so bound up with those of his neighbors that to do otherwise was nearly unthinkable.

That would to a large extent explain why most veterans of both sides got along pretty well afterward -- in a way, they had all fought for the same cause, with abolition, slavery, states rights, free labor, the tariff, and all the rest of it being something their parents, landlords, employers, or local grandees had stuck them with.

But back to the p*ss*ng contest: if it wasn't an insurrection, how come the Confederates called themselves "rebels"? And if it was an insurrection, how come the Yankees called them "seccesh"?

Inquiring minds want to know...

[Capt Terry]

Ah yes, that same Northern dominated congress which tolerated the 3/5 rule which made a Southern vote count for more than a Northern vote. The same congress which allowed the South to crush any opposition or even open debate on the issue of slavery by censorship of the mails, suppression of a free press, and the Gag Rule which revoked the right of petition guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. Combined with the Southern dominated Supreme Court who's Dred Scott decision effectively said that the Free States had no right to keep slaves out (how's that for States' Rights?) it's little wonder that the North became "galvanized against the south". The election of 1860 was a Northern revolt against *Southern* oppression. The North demanded that the South play by the same rules that it did. The Southern leaders were too attached to their special privilages to tolerate that. So they brought about secession by the same methods they had used hold on to power for so long (did you know that the 3/5 rule applied in the state legislatures, too? The Virginia vote on secession would have failed without that little detail).

Secession was not their only option.


Well, I do not agree with those assumptions. The North tolerated slavery and those that wanted the slaves freed didn't want them migrating north to take their jobs. The war was not a grand moral crusade to end slavery, it was an effort to force the south to reamin in the union, which I contend they had no righ to do. Lincoln said so himself and only issued the emancipation to revitalize the northern war effort. Bottom line, the south felt oppressed in the legislative halls of this country and saw no recourse.

They absolutely had a right to secede, based on the very principles the counntry was founded. Those principles did mean something, didn't they?

[icdux1]

I'm sorry, but no man-made institution should ever dictate to anyone unless they as a majority consent to be dictated to. Liberty is more important than any union. The union had no right to put itself above those "God-given rights."

well said. the basic difference between a republic and a democracy.the majority may never vote away your basic god given rights. it is both right and duty to oppose such tryanny.

[jthlmnn]

We had to right to break away from England and we did. The South had a right to vote and break away from the Union, it did and many southerners died. Killed for their desire to be a seperate country, that's it, plain and simple.


There are two ways in which a state may withdraw from the Union:

1) With the consent of the other states (A peaceful and legal approach based on the fact that all the original states had to consent to the union to begin with and existing states had to consent to the admission of a new one. All the states who "seceeded" chose to ignore this approach.)

2) By force of arms (A "de facto" approach, rather than a legal one. If this method is chosen you have to win to make it stick. The founders of the U.S.A. did. The Confederacy did not.)

These two methods are recognized and described in Texas v. White, 1869. This decision based its finding on the premises summarized below:

The original Articles of Confederation stated that the Union was "PERPETUAL". The Constitution continued in this vein and sought "A MORE PERFECT UNION" than what had previously existed.

This is the ONLY Supreme Court decision regarding the legality of secession. It has not been modified one iota since it was issued 138 years ago. The final arbiter of what is/is not Constitutional determined that there was never any right of unilateral secession: not then, not now, not ever.

[goatgirl]

John Brown being hung for his insurrection has been brought up a couple of times. Whether the States were right or wrong to seize property prior to secession, it does not exactly compare to John Brown. John Brown was an individual rising inside and against a State. Harpers Ferry was in Virginia. He was tried and hung by the State of Virginia. When the southern States seized property, it was not just by individuals and they were not acting against their State. Notice the original list says:

Georgia seizes Federal Fort Pulaski.

Alabama seizes Federal arsenal at Mount Vernon.

Florida seizes Federal Apalachicola arsenal.

States made the seizers. Obviously Georgia was not going to hang herself for seizing Fort Pulaski, so who was? And since it was not merely individuals, but the State, were they going to hang the whole State? Apparently not, no one was ever hung.

[jthlmnn]

John Brown was an individual rising inside and against a State. Harpers Ferry was in Virginia. He was tried and hung by the State of Virginia. When the southern States seized property, it was not just by individuals and they were not acting against their State. Notice the original list says:

Georgia seizes Federal Fort Pulaski.

Alabama seizes Federal arsenal at Mount Vernon.

Florida seizes Federal Apalachicola arsenal.

States made the seizers. Obviously Georgia was not going to hang herself for seizing Fort Pulaski, so who was? And since it was not merely individuals, but the State, were they going to hang the whole State? Apparently not, no one was ever hung.

1) John Brown illegally seized Federal property. That was the treasonous act. In a coordinated action involving state militia and federal troops, he was captured. (It was the federals, by the way, who stormed and retook the arsenal.) How jurisdiction for the trial was decided, I do not know.

2) The Supreme Court makes a distiction between a state and a state government. Georgia (et al) did not seize anything (despite the understandable, but inaccurate phrasing of the original post), individuals in the state government and/or their agents illegally seized Federal property. The individuals who ordered the action and those who carried it out were criminally liable. They could have been tried for treason against their respective states (like John Brown) or for treason against the U.S.A. The fact that they were not speaks more to the forebearance and weariness of bloodshed on the part of the U.S. than the legality of the actions which precipitated the war.

[icdux1]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html

[Frenchie]

I don't know whether to http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m274/Darkfold_2006/rotf.gif or http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m274/Darkfold_2006/banghead.gif.

[VA Soldier]

Both sides, through actions, words, and deeds throw their own positions into questions.
South Carolina, tried for many months through peaceful means to claim Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter was near collapse at any rate when it was seiged because the Southern forces feared an attempt by the Federal gov't to reinforce it. If they did nothing, they would be seen as failures, and if they did something they would be seen as agressors. A Tough spot for anyone to be in.
On the issue of the constitutionality of secession. If something is not speciffically mention or implied in the constitution, as secession was never mentioned, that power is reserved for the people or the states. As all the states held conventions or votes to determine their fate it would seem to me a perfectly legal method for the individual states to seceed was chosen and followed.
On the legality of seizure of federal property prior to secession, wasn't it magnamous of the US Govt not to charge any person who had anything to do with the Confederacy with treason following the war, not even Jefferson Davis. They tried, thats why he sat in jail for so long, but they could never drum up enough evidence to bring it to trial and they did not want the secession question put before the courts.
If Lincoln, believed it was an insurrection, not a war, then why would he declare a blockade, an act of war, versus, just closing the ports, a perfectly legal means to achieve the same effect, and on West Virginia, no part of a state can become another state without permission from the originial state. If Virginia was still a legal US state then the Federal government would have had to get permission from the General Assembly before West Virginia could be a legal state. Something they obviously did not do.
As far as Lincoln and the constitution, well let us not forget the arresting of people for speaking out against the US government and the war, the shutting down of newspapers for unkind editorials, and the best yet, the arresting of 2/3rds of the Maryland Legislature to prevent them from voting on secession.
So who was right and who was wrong? Both sides felt they were in the right for various reasons, and it is perfectly obvious by this thread, that the same arguments, and bull headedness that has lead our nation to freedom and war in the past, is still alive and strong today.

D. Jackson

[Capt Terry]

There are two ways in which a state may withdraw from the Union:

1) With the consent of the other states (A peaceful and legal approach based on the fact that all the original states had to consent to the union to begin with and existing states had to consent to the admission of a new one. All the states who "seceeded" chose to ignore this approach.)

2) By force of arms (A "de facto" approach, rather than a legal one. If this method is chosen you have to win to make it stick. The founders of the U.S.A. did. The Confederacy did not.)

These two methods are recognized and described in Texas v. White, 1869. This decision based its finding on the premises summarized below:

The original Articles of Confederation stated that the Union was "PERPETUAL". The Constitution continued in this vein and sought "A MORE PERFECT UNION" than what had previously existed.

This is the ONLY Supreme Court decision regarding the legality of secession. It has not been modified one iota since it was issued 138 years ago. The final arbiter of what is/is not Constitutional determined that there was never any right of unilateral secession: not then, not now, not ever.

The problem with this example is you have to accept the authority of the Supreme Court as having the final say. I do not. If I do not believe the Union was or is perpetual, then I certainly do not grant one of its' institutions as having the final say. I would expect one of its' ruling not to say anything else.

As far as I am concerned, the vote of the people is above all. When we surrender forever our collective destinies to a single government, without ever retaining the right to redirect that government or embark on a new course if necessary, our inalienable rights cease to exist. God-given freedom should not be signed away forever, but consent to be governed should be conditional and as far as I am concerned, was and still is. Again, this country was founded on the inalienable rights, the bill of rights say so. So that fact is first, the union is second.

[flattop32355]

We had to right to break away from England and we did. The South had a right to vote and break away from the Union, it did and many southerners died. Killed for their desire to be a seperate country, that's it, plain and simple.

Again, following the logic of the above statements, then counties had the right to secede from their states (which some did), towns from counties, homeowners from towns, individuals from the nation, ad infinitum.

I also seem to recall a certain Jewish Rabbi who said to obey the civil authorities and pay your taxes (render unto Caesar....). I don't recall him saying anything about a right to secede.

I find it amusing what we sometimes consider to be "rights". That word, as with some buzzwords within reenacting, has lost a degree of its meaning to dilution. (Similar to calling a fellow who hits .275 and 20 homers a year as a "superstar"; he used to be considered just a good player.)

[flattop32355]

But back to the p*ss*ng contest: if it wasn't an insurrection, how come the Confederates called themselves "rebels"? And if it was an insurrection, how come the Yankees called them "seccesh"?
Inquiring minds want to know...

They rebelled. That could happen in these two ways, among others: Insurrection against the government from within the Union, or secession, i.e. removing themselves from the Union.

Lincoln did not call for volunteers to put down the insurrection, but to put down the rebellion.

Since they rebelled, rebels. Since they did it by attemptiing secession, "seccesh".

Does the above walk a fine line with semantics, among other things? Probably, but you did ask the question... ;)

[flattop32355]

South Carolina, tried for many months through peaceful means to claim Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter was near collapse at any rate when it was seiged because the Southern forces feared an attempt by the Federal gov't to reinforce it. If they did nothing, they would be seen as failures, and if they did something they would be seen as agressors. A Tough spot for anyone to be in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the order to take Fort Sumter come to General Beauregard from the President of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis, and not the governor of the state of South Carolina?

Let us also keep in mind Lincoln's words that the South would have to fire the first shot, as he and the Federal government would not do so.

[tompritchett]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the order to take Fort Sumter come to General Beauregard from the President of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis, and not the governor of the state of South Carolina?

Yes, Davis gave the final order but it was at the repeated urging of the state government.

[flattop32355]

As far as I am concerned, the vote of the people is above all.

The vote of what body of people? Those of the South only? Those of the nation as a whole (majority rule of the entire country)? Of the pissed off slave holders and their supporters? Of the rabid abolitionists and their supporters? Some other group who agrees with me about whatever issue is at stake, but not those of another opinion or viewpoint? Just which "vote of the people" are we talking about?

We can slather grease all over the question of whose "vote of the people" we choose it to be, and try to sqeeze it into whatever pidgeon hole we individually so choose. We can then debate over who, if anyone, holds the moral and/or legal high ground, and failing a resolution to our liking, we can then take up arms to decide the issue in blood and money. That's how the real issue got settled, in the end.

What kills me is that some folk refuse to believe that it got settled.

[Pvt Schnapps]

"the vote of the people is above all"

:) Some people. Other people -- the majority -- never did like that flag over the state capitol.

The principal flaw in DiLorenzo's book is the idea that Lincoln or anyone in his place would deliberately kick off a war that would require them to raise an army and conduct operations on a scale previously beyond imagining and with absolutely no guarantee of success. The absurdity of that proposition is probably one reason why seccession seemed like a good idea at the time to Davis et al.

Go back to Shannon and Meneely -- one a Pulitzer Prize winner, the other a runner-up -- and you can see what deplorable means the federal government had at the start, including no assurance that there would even be a "north" to confront a "south" that was already organized and in arms by the time Lincoln got elected. Read Fletcher Pratt's history (it's short, cheap, and fun, by another Pulitzer Prize winner: http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Civil-War-Ordeal/dp/0486297020) and it becomes pretty clear that the north had no advantages until an unlikely combination of men -- governors, men of affairs, mid-level officers -- stepped up and brought them into play. Read Charles Pomeroy Stone's account of Washington in 1860 for a brief, amusing, and insightful look at just how well prepared the U. S. capital was, or rather wasn't, for hostilities: http://egypt.atomicmartinis.com/stone1.htm

In short, the best antidote to the conspiracy theories is just to sit down with a real history.

I'm with you, Bernie, in my amazement that there's still an argument on the same point that Sam Watkins thought settled a century and a half ago. It reminds me of something said by another Confederate soldier, Robert Patrick: "I was not aware that there was so much ignorance in the South until I came into the army."

[Capt Terry]

The vote of what body of people? Those of the South only? Those of the nation as a whole (majority rule of the entire country)? Of the pissed off slave holders and their supporters? Of the rabid abolitionists and their supporters? Some other group who agrees with me about whatever issue is at stake, but not those of another opinion or viewpoint? Just which "vote of the people" are we talking about?

We can slather grease all over the question of whose "vote of the people" we choose it to be, and try to sqeeze it into whatever pidgeon hole we individually so choose. We can then debate over who, if anyone, holds the moral and/or legal high ground, and failing a resolution to our liking, we can then take up arms to decide the issue in blood and money. That's how the real issue got settled, in the end.

What kills me is that some folk refuse to believe that it got settled.


The vote of the people that voted and that counted! Voters in California have no right to decide the future of voters in Kentucky or vice versa in a question of secession. It was not treason, it was a decision to move in a different direction. As much as I am proud to be an American, I am a Kentuckian first and foremost. I believe that this country was founded on those inalienable rights granted by the creator. The union protects those rights, it does not grant nor supercede them. To believe that, one would have to contend that the union is above God. I do not and I am not a religious fanatic. I simply give my loyalty on a conditional basis. I will not consent to be ruled, though indirectly, by the modern day threat of a North American Union as is a real possibility. The people of a given state have a right to decide that state's future.

[Capt Terry]

Again, following the logic of the above statements, then counties had the right to secede from their states (which some did), towns from counties, homeowners from towns, individuals from the nation, ad infinitum.

I also seem to recall a certain Jewish Rabbi who said to obey the civil authorities and pay your taxes (render unto Caesar....). I don't recall him saying anything about a right to secede.

I find it amusing what we sometimes consider to be "rights". That word, as with some buzzwords within reenacting, has lost a degree of its meaning to dilution. (Similar to calling a fellow who hits .275 and 20 homers a year as a "superstar"; he used to be considered just a good player.)

That quote of the certain Jewish Rabbi could also be viewed as putting things in proper perspective. In this case, give the Union its' due. I don't recall him addressing the question of secession either. I don't think you can say he was a follower of Caesar

As far as cities and counties seceding, I have to agree. Didn't New York City consider secession? Didn't counties actually secede from Virginia and form West Virginia, a move the "union" supported by granting statehood to those counties as West Virginia? I saw no federal move to reunite Virginia following the war. It appears, the rights of those citizens were respected. I would expect the rights of all citizens to be respected, as defined in the Bill of Rights and without condition enacted by the federal government. Bottom line, we, as human being, have those rights with or without a union. The union has no right to place conditions on them.

[flattop32355]

The people of a given state have a right to decide that state's future.

Within established parameters, I agree with you. However, we fought a war some years ago that established certain things, one of which is you can't decide to take the ball and change homes if the game isn't going to your liking.

Though I live in Ohio now (born there, too), I consider myself more a Kentuckian, since I was raised there. But my loyalties are much more centered on a national than a state viewpoint. I'd expect that holds true for a goodly majority of folk, while still allowing for state pride.

[Pvt Schnapps]

"The people of a given state have a right to decide that state's future."

True, that. But the majority of the people in South Carolina were technically furniture and thus denied that right.

And it's really bizarre to talk about the god-given right to seccede of a state like your home, Kentucky, in which the majority of the people wanted to stay in the union. In fact the majority of troops from Kentucky fought for the north -- by one count 103,000 (64,000 white & 25,000 black volunteers, plus 14,000 local white militia) vs. 35,000 to 40,000 who fought for the Confederacy. See: http://users.aol.com/CintiCWRT/bluegrass.html

The same site supports the following narrative, sourced earlier:

"The last of the contested border states, which we have still to mention, is Kentucky. Its recent history is particularly characteristic of the policy of the Southern Confederacy. Among its 1,135,713 inhabitants Kentucky has 225,490 slaves. In three successive general elections by the people-in the winter of 1861, when elections to a congress of the border states were held; in June 1861, when elections to the Congress in Washington took place; finally, in August 1861, in elections to the legislature of the State of Kentucky-an ever increasing majority decided for the Union. On the other hand, Magoffin, the Governor of Kentucky, and all the high officials of the state are fanatical supporters of the slaveholders' party, as is Breckinridge, Kentucky's representative in the Senate in Washington, Vice-President of the United States under Buchanan, and candidate of the slaveholders' party in the presidential election of 1860. Too weak to win over Kentucky for secession, the influence of the slaveholders' party was strong enough to make this state amenable to a declaration of neutrality on the outbreak of war. The Confederacy recognised the neutrality as long as it served its purposes, as long as the Confederacy itself was engaged in crushing the resistance in east Tennessee. Hardly was this end attained when it knocked at the gates of Kentucky with the butt of a gun to the cry of: “The South needs its entire territory. It will and must have it!"

"From the south-west and south-east its corps of free-booters simultaneously invaded the “neutral” state. Kentucky awoke from its dream of neutrality, its legislature openly took sides with the Union, surrounded the traitorous Governor with a committee of public safety, called the people to arms, outlawed Breckinridge and ordered the secessionists to evacuate the invaded territory immediately. This was the signal for war. An army of the Southern Confederacy is moving on Louisville, while volunteers from Illinois, Indiana and Ohio flock hither to save Kentucky from the armed missionaries of slavery.

"The attempts of the Confederacy to annex Missouri and Kentucky, for example, against the will of these states, prove the hollowness of the pretext that it is fighting for the rights of the individual states against the encroachments of the Union. On the individual states that it considers to belong to the “South” it confers, to be sure, the right to separate from the Union, but by no means the right to remain in the Union."

[flattop32355]

I don't think you can say he was a follower of Caesar.

My point is not whether he followed Caesar, but that said to respect and obey the rules of the civil authority.


As far as cities and counties seceding, I have to agree. Didn't New York City consider secession? Didn't counties actually secede from Virginia and form West Virginia, a move the "union" supported by granting statehood to those counties as West Virginia?

While knowing nothing about NYC on the issue, I do know that some counties in at least Tennessee and Mississippi voted to secede from their states.

The separation of the western counties from Virginia to form West Virginia was a highly controversial issue at the time; many thought it was illegal or at least questionable. Had it not be war time, it probably wouldn't have occurred.

Not all the people in those western counties wanted to separate from Virginia. The same was true in each southern state on the vote to secede. So, again, it goes back to my questions of which vote counts as the voice of a given "people".

There is nothing sacred about the state level of government, as opposed to national, county, township, city, or any other. The only way to insure unanimity is at the individual level; anything else will likely be a split decision.

[sbl]

"King George thought he was right as well."

Terry,
He also didn't win. Even if rights are inalienable (or unalienable,) you still have to win against the guy that doesn't let you use them. Races and groups in our country know that from experience.

[7thMDYankee]

It is interesting that Virginia and New York both ratified the Constitution on the "condition" they could pull out of it when it suited them. James Madison sent it back after Congress voted to refuse the ratification until the conditional clauses were removed - they were.

Terry, I respect your opinions and position here, but the truth is that history is not supporting those positions. Schnapps has done a yeoman's job pointing it out and referencing volumes that help explain it better. Specifically, the popular sovereignty argument is not only weak, but actually hurting your position.

The South would have been better served challenging their status in the Union before the Supreme Court, not the battlefield. It is very likely they would have won their case with Taney sitting on the bench. Article IV, Section 3 clearly addresses how states enter this Union, but the entire document is quite silent on leaving it. Therefore, it easily falls into that category of rights to be interpreted as being reserved, or surrendered to the common good (think of yelling fire in a theater).

[hanktrent]

The vote of the people that voted and that counted! Voters in California have no right to decide the future of voters in Kentucky or vice versa in a question of secession.

Okay, I can go along with that as a logical argument. It's circles within circles. Countries forge international agreements, state representatives vote on federal laws, citizens of a state vote on state laws, residents of a city vote on city laws.

If one of the inner circles doesn't want to be part of a larger circle, but the larger circle wants its laws to apply to the inner circle, brute force may be necessary to resolve the disagreement. But one can argue that each circle--each unit of people--has a right to choose its own course.


I believe that this country was founded on those inalienable rights granted by the creator. (snip) The people of a given state have a right to decide that state's future.

The logic starts showing cracks, though, if one begins invoking inalienable rights while applying the same reasoning to both the 1860s and today.

Does "the people of a given state" mean, basically, only the white males even today? Is it always the white males who are the local unit, making the decisions for the women and blacks who live among them?

Or, if "the people of a given state," means all the adults, male and female, black and white, then were "the people" really deciding in the 1860s, if most of them weren't allowed to cast a vote?

Either women and blacks have rights which morally and legally may be given or taken away and therefore aren't inalienable, or (my view) they've always had rights which unfortunately used to be wrongly denied.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[goatgirl]

1) John Brown illegally seized Federal property. That was the treasonous act.

True. However, history tends to lean that John Brown was hung more for inciting slave insurrection than for seizing Federal property. Horace Greeley indicates this in his American Conflict, “It is not necessary to linger here over the legal proceedings in this case; nor do the complaints, so feely made at the time, of indecent haste and unfair dealing, on the part of the Virginia authorities, seem fully justified….Virginia had but this alternative--to hang John Brown, or to abolish Slavery. She did not choose to abolish Slavery; and she had no remaining choice but to hang John Brown.”

[Capt Terry]

Okay, I can go along with that as a logical argument. It's circles within circles. Countries forge international agreements, state representatives vote on federal laws, citizens of a state vote on state laws, residents of a city vote on city laws.

If one of the inner circles doesn't want to be part of a larger circle, but the larger circle wants its laws to apply to the inner circle, brute force may be necessary to resolve the disagreement. But one can argue that each circle--each unit of people--has a right to choose its own course.



The logic starts showing cracks, though, if one begins invoking inalienable rights while applying the same reasoning to both the 1860s and today.

Does "the people of a given state" mean, basically, only the white males even today? Is it always the white males who are the local unit, making the decisions for the women and blacks who live among them?

Or, if "the people of a given state," means all the adults, male and female, black and white, then were "the people" really deciding in the 1860s, if most of them weren't allowed to cast a vote?

Either women and blacks have rights which morally and legally may be given or taken away and therefore aren't inalienable, or (my view) they've always had rights which unfortunately used to be wrongly denied.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Today my position would include all citizens, but remember, unfortunately, no state or the federal government included slaves, freedmen or women in those days. Still, given that landscape, it doesn't mean the vote of the ones who could, didn't rule.

[jthlmnn]

True. However, history tends to lean that John Brown was hung more for inciting slave insurrection than for seizing Federal property. Horace Greeley indicates this in his American Conflict, “It is not necessary to linger here over the legal proceedings in this case; nor do the complaints, so feely made at the time, of indecent haste and unfair dealing, on the part of the Virginia authorities, seem fully justified….Virginia had but this alternative--to hang John Brown, or to abolish Slavery. She did not choose to abolish Slavery; and she had no remaining choice but to hang John Brown.”

The charge was treason against the State of Virginia. That is the crime for which he was convicted and the legal basis for his hanging. It was a valid charge and the sentence was in keeping with that law. I don't doubt other motivating factors, I am merely sticking with the legal parallel. As Brown was tried for treason, so could the individuals in the states that seized Federal property. (Especially those who did it before declaring secession. Their cases would have had greater clarity.)

The question might be asked, "Why did they not charge Brown with inciting slave insurrection, if this was their true fear?" This is my opinion, but I believe it is supported by the facts and the understanding of historians we can all respect. John Brown's actions were widely condemned by people in all states, North & South. Treason against Virginia was a valid charge and would be less controversial than inciting slave revolt. The latter charge would have opened its own can of worms and may have reignited support for Brown. From a PR perspective, this was a wise choice. It kept the lid on things for a little bit longer. (From what I have read, most of the principal figures involved with case would have been much happier if Brown had been killed in the raid. It would have spared them the trouble and controversy of a trial, which would only make him a martyr to the abolitionist cause.)

Respectfully,

[7thMDYankee]

John,

A few facts need to be clarified. John Brown was charged with inciting slave revolt. His indictment consisted of four counts: first, for insurrection, second for treason, third and fourth for murder. He was convicted on all counts.

I think southerners were more afraid of another Nat Turner running around or being inspired than opening any can of worms. Just my humbled opinion.

[ScottWashburn]

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that Brown could be charged with treason against the State of Virginia? I mean usually treason is a crime against your own country. How could Brown have committed treason against Virginia if he wasn't a citizen of Virginia? If during World War II a German snuck over here and committed sabotage he could certainly be tried and executed for sabotage but not for treason. I could see Brown being tried for treason against the United States but not Virginia. Not a huge point but it does seem odd.

[tompritchett]

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that Brown could be charged with treason against the State of Virginia? I mean usually treason is a crime against your own country. How could Brown have committed treason against Virginia if he wasn't a citizen of Virginia? If during World War II a German snuck over here and committed sabotage he could certainly be tried and executed for sabotage but not for treason. I could see Brown being tried for treason against the United States but not Virginia. Not a huge point but it does seem odd.

That is because you are looking at it from a 21rst Century outlook rather than an 19th Century viewpoint where states played a much more prominent role in peoples' loyalties. A classic example of that difference is the oath that Lee took when he accepted his commission as LTC (credit for this quote goes to Goatgirl who posted it in another thread)(emphasis mine):

I, Robert E. Lee appointed a Lieutenant Colonel of the Second Regt. of Cavalry in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever: and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the Officers appointed over me, according to the Rules and Articles for the government of the Armies of the United States.

Both Lee and Davis disliked the idea of secession and Davis actually argued against it but both felt obligated by their loyalties to their home states to follow those states down the path of secession once the decision was made. In other words, for many in this time period, you were a citizen of your state first and only a citizen of the U.S. because of your state citizenship. Therefore, in that historical context, charging John Brown with treason against the state of Virginia instead of the U.S. makes sense.

[ScottWashburn]

Thomas, I understand that but John Brown wasn't a citizen of Virginia. I can certainly see how he could be charged with inciting a slave rebellion and murder and a lot of other charges. But treason? Treason usually means betraying your country or breaking an oath of loyalty. Virginia was not John Brown's country (nor was he Virginia's citizen). From Virginia's viewpoint he would be a foreign invader, not a citizen turned traitor. Virginia could only claim him as a citizen and a traitor if it did exactly the opposite of what you were saying: put loyalty to the country above loyalty to the state. As I said it's not a big deal, Brown could have been rightly executed for a number of other reasons, it just seems like a legal oddity.

[Southern Cal]

Moving back a bit towards the original point, only after secession did South Carolina occupy Federal property, subsuming Federal property as state property. The argument for South Carolina's secession is one case, whether it was actually lawful under the U.S. Constitution or not (that is a different question). However, the other state government's seizure of Federal property by their state Militia or other state sanctioned armed bodies of men, then seceding afterwards, is an entirely different case. The state governments (or their sanctioned agents) in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana, effected the seizure of Federal military installations and other U.S. military property before they seceded, while they were still part of the United States, and still governed under U.S. laws as allowed under the U.S. Constitution. Using the dictionary definitions of "insurrection" and "secession" listed by the pard above, these latter cases constituted armed insurrection (or armed rebellion if you will) against the United States, secession being declared only after the fact. Clearly, insurrection and secession are two different terms with entirely different meanings.

[jthlmnn]

John,

A few facts need to be clarified. John Brown was charged with inciting slave revolt. His indictment consisted of four counts: first, for insurrection, second for treason, third and fourth for murder. He was convicted on all counts.

I think southerners were more afraid of another Nat Turner running around or being inspired than opening any can of worms. Just my humbled opinion.


Thank you, David. The accounts I've read to date focused more on Brown's activities prior to the events at Harper's Ferry, and the raid itself. These accounts only mentioned the charge of treason.

Fear of slave revolt had been a constant in slaveholder thinking for a long time. For Gov. Wise in particular, consideration of Northern sentiments do come into play, as he had political ambitions that extended well beyond Virginia. The final decision to push for the death penalty, however, does seem to have rested in the fears of his Virginia constituents. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/brown/peopleevents/pande05.html (a brief synopsis)

Since all of the charges carry the possible sentence of capital punishment, and Brown was, to my reading so far, found guilty of all charges (meaning that I've never seen a passage that said he was found innocent of anything, or that any charges were dropped), the parallel I've mentioned in earlier posts would still apply. The charge of treason could have been made against those who ordered and/or seized Federal property. Inciting slave revolt certainly would not apply, but, if anyone had died during the seizures, murder would.

[Malingerer]

Actually John, a bunch of people died during the siezures of the armory and arsenal at Harpers Ferry. Brown is still a polarizing figure in this country with plenty of folks seeing him as a martyred saint and others as an early day terrorist. The interesting thing to me, given all the rhetoric about God-given rights, is that Brown saw himself as a divine instrument acting out the will of God. People tend to project onto Brown their own perspective of the events surrounding the Harpers Ferry raid - so much so that he is nearly as controversial as the war itself.

[jthlmnn]

Complete agreement, Peter. Brown has been painted as both a sainted martyr and the devil incarnate, depending on the individual's perspective. I was aware of the deaths resulting from the Harper's ferry raid. The "if" in my previous post refered to the later seizure of Federal properties.

The charge of treason was included because a copy of a "new" constitution, signed by Brown & others was found in the farmhouse where they had hid prior to the raid. This made an otherwise difficult charge much easier to prove. (I believe Thomas Dorr, in Rhode Island, was the only other person to that date to have been tried and convicted of treason. He was not executed, however, and was later pardoned.)

[bob 125th nysvi]

the State Governments through their state militias performed an act of insurrection by ordering the seizure of Federal installations and property.

Once they performed that illegal act (think of it being akin to your neighbor seizing part of your yard because it looks into his backyard and he doesn't like that) they then can't perform an action they think is "legal" (seccession) to legalize their previous illegal activity.

Clearly the men who ordered the illegal action could have been held legally responsible.

Now could the men who performed the act have been held responsible for following the orders issued to them by their lawful authority (remember they worked for the state not the feds)? The invalidation of the military defense "I was following orders" is a 20th century concept so I think not.

And whether or not ANY of us beleive that seccession was legal (and its legality is the key point which can only be tested under our system in a court of law) is irrelivant to the legal facts.

No law in the US was ever written to allow for seccession.

No court ever ruled that seccession was a right granted (either explicitely or implicitely or reserved (Tom)) under the Constitution.

No other nation state EVER recognized the CSA as a legitimate government.

In fact the whole point of the war (from the southern point of view) was to obtain by force of arms that which they had no legal standing or precendent to pursue in court. Had they succeeded militarily (they never had a chance) then all of their actions would have been legal (like the Colonists' became).

Had they actually thought they had a legal leg to stand on they might have been willing to have their day in court to settle the whole issue. I suspect they realized that they didn't have a legal leg to stand on since a southern controlled Federal Government run by men who had been around during the writing of the Constitution DENIED that New england had the right

In failing to achieve their aims they in effect settled the argument we are having here ..........

their actions were strictly a failed insurrection.

[tompritchett]

In fact the whole point of the war (from the southern point of view) was to obtain by force of arms that which they had no legal standing or precendent to pursue in court. Had they succeeded militarily (they never had a chance) then all of their actions would have been legal (like the Colonists' became).

With the exception of seizing "Federal" property within their state boundaries (yes, Ft. Sumter under the rules of International Law would have been considered property of South Carolina because it resided within SC's territorial waters), the Southern states raised their military forces for the sole purpose of self-defense. At no time prior to the invasion of Southern territories by Union armies was there ever any consideration by Southern leaders of using military force against any Northern states. Once the Southern states reclaimed all the property that was contained within their borders, there was no intention to "obtain by the force of arms" their independence unless attacked by the U.S. in which case they would defend themselves. In other words, there was never any intention by the Southern leadership to launch a military offensive against the U.S. for the purpose of forcing the U.S. to grant the Confederacy recognition as an independent nation. The ultimate decision to use force of arms to resolve the issue of secession came with Lincoln's initial call to the states for militia to quell the Southern rebellion.


Had they actually thought they had a legal leg to stand on they might have been willing to have their day in court to settle the whole issue. I suspect they realized that they didn't have a legal leg to stand on since a southern controlled Federal Government run by men who had been around during the writing of the Constitution DENIED that New england had the right

At no time was secession denied to the Northern states that threatened to do so during the War of 1812 nor in response to the Louisiana Purchase. In both occasions, the Northern states decided not to carry out their threats. But in neither case am I aware of any military force used to persuade them otherwise, as your post so implies. The only prior secession threat for which I am aware of military forces being used to suppress occurred during the Nullification Crisis when President Andrew Jackson sent Federal troops to Charleston in response to South Carolina's threat to secede then.

As far as the actual arguing that any state had the right to secede, that argument was actual a fairly recent argument in the 1860's, having only becoming popular with the Congressional speeches of Daniel Webster. Prior to his arguments, it basically had been an assumed right - one that either Madison or possibly Monroe (my copy is still on my old computer so I am going on memory on which one actually made the comment) lamented about late in his life. It is interesting though that in his musing he did not deny the right but rather lamented of its existence.

[jthlmnn]

As far as the actual arguing that any state had the right to secede, that argument was actual a fairly recent argument in the 1860's, having only becoming popular with the Congressional speeches of Daniel Webster. Prior to his arguments, it basically had been an assumed right - one that either Madison or possibly Monroe (my copy is still on my old computer so I am going on memory on which one actually made the comment) lamented about late in his life. It is interesting though that in his musing he did not deny the right but rather lamented of its existence.

Madison came out quite strongly against that notion.


The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more that an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired against their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution Ÿ laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!. (Cited on p. 483-Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society New York: George Braziller, 1965)

Of particular interest is the his characterization of the "erroneous view of the nature of the Union". He bemoans the fact that these notions are even countenanced and fears the inevitable results if such notions are pursued.

As for Monroe, I cannot say. But the architect of the Constitution seems rather clear.

[tompritchett]

Madison came out quite strongly against that notion.

Thank you for responding on who it was. Do you happen to have the actual quote from his musing, which I believe that he made late in his life. If I remember correctly, he bemoaned the fact that the notion existed but he did not necessarily state that it was unconstitutional. But then I am having to remember something that I read several years ago.

[jthlmnn]

Thank you for responding on who it was. Do you happen to have the actual quote from his musing, which I believe that he made late in his life.

Sure Tom,
The occasion was a letter to William Cabell Rives, dated March 12, 1833. The letter, in its entirety, follows.


To William Cabell Rives

Montpr, March 12, 1833

Dear Sir,

I have recd your very kind letter of the 6th, from Washington, and by the same mail a copy of your late Speech in the Senate, for which I tender my thanks. I have found as I expected, that it takes a very able and enlightening view of its subject. I wish it may have the effect of reclaiming to the doctrine & language held by all from the birth of the Constitution, & till very lately by themselves, those who now Contend that the States have never parted with an Atom of their sovereignty, and consequently that the Constitutional band which holds them together, is a mere league or partnership, without any of the characteristics of sovereignty or nationality.

It seems strange that it should be necessary to disprove this novel and nullifying doctrine, and stranger still that those who deny it should be denounced as Innovators, heretics & Apostates. Our political system is admitted to be a new Creation — a real nondescript. Its character therefore must be sought within itself, not in precedents, because there are none, not in writers whose comments are guided by precedents. Who can tell at present how Vattel and others of that class, would have qualified (in the Gallic sense of the term) a Compound & peculiar system with such an example of it as ours before them.

What can be more preposterous than to say that the States as united, are in no respect or degree, a Nation, which implies sovereignty, altho' acknowledged to be such by all other Nations & Sovereigns, and maintaining with them, all the in ternational relations, of war & peace, treaties, commerce, &c, and, on the other hand and at the same time, to say that the States separately are compleatly nations & sovereigns, although they can separately neither speak nor harken to any other nation, nor maintain with it any of the international relations whatever and would be disowned as Nations if presenting themselves in that character.

The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.

The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?

In explaining the proceedings of Virga in 98-99, the state of things at that time was the more properly appealed to, as it has been too much overlooked. The doctrines combated are always a key to the arguments employed. It is but too common to read the expressions of a remote period thro' the modern meaning of them, & to omit guards agst misconstruction not anticipated. A few words with a prophetic gift, might have prevented much error in the glosses on those proceedings. The remark is equally applicable to the Constitution itself.

Having thrown these thoughts on paper in the midst of interruptions added to other dangers of inaccuracy, I will ask the favor of you to return the letter after perusal. I have latterly taken this liberty with more than one of my corresponding friends. And every lapse of very short periods becomes now a fresh apology for it.

Neither Mrs. M. nor myself have forgotten the promised visit which included Mrs. Rives, and we flatter ourselves the fulfilment of it, will not be very distant. Meanwhile we tender to you both our joint & affecte. salutations.

P. Script. I inclose a little pamphlet rec. a few days ago, which so well repaid my perusal, that I submit it to yours, to be returned only at your leisure. It is handsomely written, and its matter well chosen & interesting. A like task as well executed in every State wd. be of historical value; the more so as the examples might both prompt & guide researches, not as yet too late but rapidly becoming so.

A transcription of the letter can be found on the web at:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/James_Madison%2C_Letter_to_William_Rives

I'm know that it can be found elsewhere. I have seen the same passage quoted in several places, without variation. (I never trust "Wiki" all by itself.) This is just the easiest place to access.

[jthlmnn]

Here is a link to the original letter at the library of Congress site:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mjm&fileName=24/mjm24.db&recNum=38&itemLink=%2Fammem%2Fcollections%2Fmadison_papers%2 Fmjmser1.html&linkText=6

[tompritchett]

Thank you.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

With the exception of seizing "Federal" property within their state boundaries (yes, Ft. Sumter under the rules of International Law would have been considered property of South Carolina because it resided within SC's territorial waters), the Southern states raised their military forces for the sole purpose of self-defense. At no time prior to the invasion of Southern territories by Union armies was there ever any consideration by Southern leaders of using military force against any Northern states. Once the Southern states reclaimed all the property that was contained within their borders, there was no intention to "obtain by the force of arms" their independence unless attacked by the U.S. in which case they would defend themselves. In other words, there was never any intention by the Southern leadership to launch a military offensive against the U.S. for the purpose of forcing the U.S. to grant the Confederacy recognition as an independent nation. The ultimate decision to use force of arms to resolve the issue of secession came with Lincoln's initial call to the states for militia to quell the Southern rebellion.



At no time was secession denied to the Northern states that threatened to do so during the War of 1812 nor in response to the Louisiana Purchase. In both occasions, the Northern states decided not to carry out their threats. But in neither case am I aware of any military force used to persuade them otherwise, as your post so implies. The only prior secession threat for which I am aware of military forces being used to suppress occurred during the Nullification Crisis when President Andrew Jackson sent Federal troops to Charleston in response to South Carolina's threat to secede then.

As far as the actual arguing that any state had the right to secede, that argument was actual a fairly recent argument in the 1860's, having only becoming popular with the Congressional speeches of Daniel Webster. Prior to his arguments, it basically had been an assumed right - one that either Madison or possibly Monroe (my copy is still on my old computer so I am going on memory on which one actually made the comment) lamented about late in his life. It is interesting though that in his musing he did not deny the right but rather lamented of its existence.

So what was the reasoning for firing on Ft. Sumter? By your rational...modern embassies would appear to be subject to the same fate...

How about the ship the Star of the West...was there a provoked cause for the South to fire on this ship?

[TexConfederate]

This was argued in another thread a short while back (probably several before that, as well). I suggest a perusal of those postings as a starting point regarding the period arguments as to whether any state had a "right" to secede and the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White.

http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4010&page=23


With all due respect, "Texas vs White" was written by a Supreme Court, who's members consisted entirely of Radical Republicans. That decision is invalid, by that fact alone........

[VA Soldier]

So what was the reasoning for firing on Ft. Sumter? By your rational...modern embassies would appear to be subject to the same fate...

1st-An embassy is different than a military instilation.

2nd-Per the Fort Sumter question, would the US government allow for any duration a fort, or any other military instilation controlled by another nation in the middle of any of its ports?

3rd-Wether we agree with secession or not, it must be remembered to the people of South Carolina they were at that time a part of a seperate nation from the US. To allow to have Fort Sumter under US control in the middle of Charleston Harbor goes against any and all senses of reason.

4th-At the same token, what of Iraq, sure Sadam was doing a lot of sabre rattling, but in the days leading up to the current action in the gulf, did he make any attack upon the US or its forces in the region? Or, was it a case of the US respondind to a percieved threat much as forces in South Carolina did in April of 1861?

D. Jackson

[CUPP]

Totally different situation ! dont understand how that could be brought into this conversation ? Iraq was not a threat that has been proven

Edward Cupp

[7thMDYankee]

You are correct that an embassy is different from a military installation. However, embassies are sovereign territory to the country who occupies the embassy. Thus, regardless of the usage of the facility it is still sovereign territory.

You posed the question: "[W]ould the US government allow for any duration a fort, or any other military instilation controlled by another nation in the middle of any of its ports?"

I would answer, "No." However, the occupation of military installations upon the territory of an ally or adversary is not unprecedented - even in our current age. I simply point to Gitmo.

Regarding your third point, it is difficult to understand. You begin by stating that agreeing to secession is irrelevant. Then, assume that everyone can accept the idea that SC legitimately seceded and were, therefore, a separate sovereign nation?!

I would counter-argue they were indeed residents of a separate state, but not of another nation since they did not possess the explicit right to secede. We could go in that circle forever - or until at least we decided to agree, which may or may not happen!

On the fourth point you again assume we all agree that SC was a separate sovereign nation.

It has been stated in this thread already the legitimacy of the CSA was never established. In other words, no other nation in the world - however sympathetic they might have been to the "cause" - recognized the CSA as the official government of the territory occupied by the rebel forces. Thus, the comparison to Iraq is apples vs. oranges.

This thread began over a question as to what were legal vs. illegal seizures of installations in southern territory. I simply argue it doesn't matter. The leap one has to make to reason logically that the US gov't had to yield its property to states simply because it happened to be in their territory is nonsense. At minimum the CSA "could" have seized the facilities, but would then - as a sovereign nation - be under obligation to return the chattel on that ground and compensate the US gov't for the land. This clearly did not happen. No matter how you slice it or carve it to make it look good, the South acted wrongly.

[jthlmnn]

With all due respect, "Texas vs White" was written by a Supreme Court, who's members consisted entirely of Radical Republicans. That decision is invalid, by that fact alone........

Respect accepted and returned. Whatever personal opinion one may hold of the Supreme Court or any of the individual justices in any given era, its decisions are valid and binding. The Supreme Court IS the final arbiter of what is Constitutionally legal and what is not. The only case involving the legality of unilateral secession is Texas v White. (Subsequent Constitutional ammendments rendered the issue moot.) So, when discussing whether the unilateral secession of a state was constitutional one must refer to the Supreme Court and its decision in this case.

The foundations upon which the decision in Texas v White is based are the texts of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. The legal arguments are clear and follow a line of logic established and expounded by several of the "Founding Fathers" (like Washington & Madison) and continued through the antebellum years. If for no other reason, the decision should be read to understand the arguments AGAINST the legality/constitutionality of unilateral secession, all of which existed and were made prior to the war.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

You are correct that an embassy is different from a military installation. However, embassies are sovereign territory to the country who occupies the embassy. Thus, regardless of the usage of the facility it is still sovereign territory.

You posed the question: "[W]ould the US government allow for any duration a fort, or any other military instilation controlled by another nation in the middle of any of its ports?"

I would answer, "No." However, the occupation of military installations upon the territory of an ally or adversary is not unprecedented - even in our current age. I simply point to Gitmo.

Regarding your third point, it is difficult to understand. You begin by stating that agreeing to secession is irrelevant. Then, assume that everyone can accept the idea that SC legitimately seceded and were, therefore, a separate sovereign nation?!

I would counter-argue they were indeed residents of a separate state, but not of another nation since they did not possess the explicit right to secede. We could go in that circle forever - or until at least we decided to agree, which may or may not happen!

On the fourth point you again assume we all agree that SC was a separate sovereign nation.

It has been stated in this thread already the legitimacy of the CSA was never established. In other words, no other nation in the world - however sympathetic they might have been to the "cause" - recognized the CSA as the official government of the territory occupied by the rebel forces. Thus, the comparison to Iraq is apples vs. oranges.

This thread began over a question as to what were legal vs. illegal seizures of installations in southern territory. I simply argue it doesn't matter. The leap one has to make to reason logically that the US gov't had to yield its property to states simply because it happened to be in their territory is nonsense. At minimum the CSA "could" have seized the facilities, but would then - as a sovereign nation - be under obligation to return the chattel on that ground and compensate the US gov't for the land. This clearly did not happen. No matter how you slice it or carve it to make it look good, the South acted wrongly.

Well said Dave! Note my post about the firing on the Star of the West was avoided.

Paul

[TexConfederate]

Respect accepted and returned. Whatever personal opinion one may hold of the Supreme Court or any of the individual justices in any given era, its decisions are valid and binding. The Supreme Court IS the final arbiter of what is Constitutionally legal and what is not. The only case involving the legality of unilateral secession is Texas v White. (Subsequent Constitutional ammendments rendered the issue moot.) So, when discussing whether the unilateral secession of a state was constitutional one must refer to the Supreme Court and its decision in this case.

The foundations upon which the decision in Texas v White is based are the texts of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. The legal arguments are clear and follow a line of logic established and expounded by several of the "Founding Fathers" (like Washington & Madison) and continued through the antebellum years. If for no other reason, the decision should be read to understand the arguments AGAINST the legality/constitutionality of unilateral secession, all of which existed and were made prior to the war.



One of my problems with this ruling is that it was ruled AFTER the fact, by the victors. I personally still believe in the right of secession. (No I am no closet madman wanting to restore the CSA :) but, I believe that it is a last resort for states that are being trampled on...:)



Jaye Curtis
12th Texas Infantry

[TexConfederate]

Yes, I think what many people in the South forgot at the time (and what quite a few forget today) is that even if secession is legal, it does not unmake the United States. That nation still exists and any and all property it owned before it still owns along with whatever treaties, laws, rights and obligations it had. So all of the federal forts and arsenals are still US property and US territory. Obviously if the separation had become permanent those would have been items that would have had to be dealt with by negotiations.

One of the interesting things to speculate on is how the western territories would have affected things if the South had managed to secede peacefully in 1861. Legally, the South would have ceded any and all claims on the western territories. All of those would still be US property. But it was the fate of those territories, whether they were to be slave or free, that was a major factor in precipitating the crisis of 1860 which brought about secession. Would the South have just given up all that land in return for a peaceful separation? Somehow I doubt it. Even if secession had been peacefully carried out in 1861 I doubt that the peace would have lasted very long!

Scott:

The Confederate Commissioners were trying to negotiate the peaceful transfer, and possible payment for Ft. Sumter, and the rest of the Federal Property, but Lincoln refused to recognize or even meet with them. I respectfully disagree about a peaceful seperation. I believe it could have been done, but both sides were polarized and stubborn.....



Jaye Curtis
12th Texas Infantry

[TexConfederate]

The timing is important, your attempt to dismiss it notwithstanding. What the states intended to do is irrelevant. The law judges actions, not intentions. What the Southern states did was insurrection, it was rebellion, and to quote Abbie Hoffman, "The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it." They chose to put the issue to a test of arms and they lost.

With all due respect:
The victors wrote the history books. That doesn't mean they were right.:)

"The Confederate soldier didn't lose on the battlefield, he wore himself out whuppin' the enemy"

General Jubal Early

[Southern Cal]

I think it might have been Socrates who said: "he who asserts must prove". Did the victorious North, and in particular, Yankee historians really write the history of the Civil War or the history of the South? I don't think so. Here are a few famous southern historians you might want to read. Shelby Foote was from Mississippi and most CW readers are acquainted with his works, especially the three volume set: "The Civil War, a Narrative". C. Vann Woodward, from Arkansas, won the Pulitzer prize for editing: "Mary Chesnut's Civil War". Grady McWhitey, from Louisiana, wrote: "Confederate Crackers and Cavaliers", "Battle in the Wilderness", "Braxton Bragg and the Confederate Defeat", "Cracker Culture", "Jefferson Davis, the Unforgiven", "Attack and Die", "Grant, Lee, Lincoln, and the Radicals, 1864", and other works about the South. Dr. George Brown Tindall was from South Carolina and wrote more about the post war south, especially about "Jim Crow". Agreed, because some historians are from the victorious section, it doesn't make them right. In the same way, just because a historian, say James McPherson for example, is from "Yankeedom", it doesn't follow that he is wrong either. Jubal Early's pithy quotation might be tongue-in-cheek, but it also reveals the same kind of arrogant attitude and denial of the facts that led others to construct many southern myths after the Civil War to explain why, what many southerners viewed as a just and honorable cause, could have been lost. The same attitude results in a good deal of the more recent "junk" history, much of which seems closer to revisionist propaganda than history.

[TexConfederate]

Revisionist History is a problem, no doubt.
McPherson is NOT my favorite historian, but Shelby Foote is....:)
I think that with the exception of slavery, the Southern Cause WAS just and honorable. It was about two sections of our country, contending wether loyalty to one's state, or to one's nation came first, and where power should reside. A problem that STILL plagues us today.:D

[reb64]

dont forget that the move from moultrie to sumter could also be seen as a hostile or terroristic act. they destroyed some property and then occupied another. without orders no mind you. this could also be seen as jumping the gun so to speak by the north.

[flattop32355]

For those who insist that the South was wronged and the North fully at fault, there is no amount of discussion that will have any benefit. The same holds true for those who believe the North was totally right and the South totally wrong. The truth generally falls somewhere in the middle between the extremes.

In the final analysis, the South fired upon Ft. Sumter, instigating armed hostilities, which the North then won. One can argue, if one chooses to do so, that the South was "forced" to do it, but even accepting that as "fact", it remains that the first overt attack originated with the South.

Probably no other type act could have galvanized the North into common action so well as that catalytic act.

[7thMDYankee]

Mr. Curtis,

Just for the fun of it... Shelby Foote was not an historian, I can say that because he said so. His three volume masterpiece is just that; but relies on secondary sources rather than primary, and offers the telling of a story rather than a thesis. This is the notable quality of prose that separates historians from story tellers.

I used to belong to a listserv of AP teachers who spent way too much time a couple years back arguing this point. It resurfaced from time to time. I took myself off the listserv for the constant beating of a dead horse's dusty remains...

The argument on that thread revolved much the way the argument has here - the South's understanding of its right to secede. The objection stemmed from Mr. Foote's comments in Ken Burns' film, The Civil War. In fact, Mr. Foote took one step into the historian's shoes by proclaiming the southern states wouldn't have joined the union if they couldn't have left it. Not only is there no evidence to back this assertion up, but the facts point in the opposite direction. [refer to NY and VA conditional ratification clauses]

Not looking to argue, but I saw your note and my memory was jogged...

[VA Soldier]

My point about our view on secession being somewhat irrelevant is the fact that what the people of South Carolina believed to be true at the time they acted.

After trying for months to peacefully negotiate a transfer of Ft. Sumter to Confederate hands had failed. They believed a mission to resupply the fort imminent. At the risk of losing face not only to the US but to the rest of the world, something very important not only at the time, but especially to a nation attempting to receive international recognition, they could not allow to happen. They did what any self-respecting nation would have done when faced with a potentially hostile military force within its borders, they neutralized it.
While an embassy is soverign soil, it does not pose the same problem as a military instilation. Fort Sumter could have disrupted shipping into and out of Charleston harbor, not something you want if you have an export based economy.
Attempting to use a modern day example to highlight this point-The Cuban Missle Crisis. Russia placed medium range icbms on Cuba, the US got very scared and told Russia to get rid of the nukes. The US went to either DEFCON 3 or 2, the country was put on alert and we were very, very, close to going to WW III. After some wrangling over some missiles in Turkey, Russia backed down, the world moved on. I know, I know what does this have to do with 1861 and Fort Sumter. They Confederacy was afraid if they left FT Sumter in US hands, it would A, hurt their credibility, B hurt their economy, therefore they could not allow it to stay. They mobilized forces to push the issues, but instead of the US backing down, they called what they hoped was a bluff, they were wrong and the Civil War began.
As far as tying this to Iraq, whether or not Iraq was a threat, when the US invaded, they were percieved to be a threat. When FT Sumter was attacked it was percieved to be a threat. Hindsight is 20/20. We can not judge the people of the past by the standards of today, we must judge them on the basis of what was, not what is.
Yeah I know this is a bit longwinded, but decent explainations tend to be.

D. Jackson

[Southern Cal]

South Carolina did not seize Federal property before seceding, as the other states listed at the beginning of this thread certainly did. After declaring it's independence in December, 1860, the 'Republic of South Carolina' sent a delegation to Washington, meeting with members of the Buchanan Administration to negotiate transfer and compensation over Forts Moultrie and Sumter, and the U.S. Arsenal, Charleston.

Meanwhile hundreds of State militia agitated to drive Federal forces out if they didn't leave voluntarily. President Buchanan refused to withdraw the U.S. garrison in Charleston but did agree not to send any reinforcements. In turn, South Carolina officials agreed to refrain from attacking Federal forces while negotiations were continuing for transfer of the forts. Apparently South Carolina officials interpreted the agreement that Buchanan would not reinforce the Charleston garrison, but that there wouldn't be any change in the military dispositions there.

The man on the spot and U.S. garrison commander, Major Anderson, took the threat of armed conflict with the State Militia seriously, and with ambiguous orders from the War Dept. decided the best way to avoid the possibility of bloodshed over defending Fort Moultrie, was to remove the garrison to Fort Sumter, which was unfinished, not fully armed, and provided a water barrier between his forces and the S.C. Militia. Since still Federal property, Major Anderson, as an officer of the U.S. Army, spiked the cannon and rendered useless other war matriel left behind at Fort Moultrie.

Major Anderson was a Kentuckyan, had owned slaves, sympathised with the south, and was related to a southern family by his marriage. In transferring his forces to Fort Sumter, Major Anderson was trying to avert a war, not start one, and in doing so angered South Carolinians, because of the misunderstanding (likely on both sides) of the nature of the agreement with President Buchanan. Southerners saw the transfer of U.S. forces to Ft. Sumter as a breach of faith by the Buchanan administration. Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis went to the White house and called Buchanan a "dishonored" President. Vacillating, President Buchanan could have, but didn't order Major Anderson back to Fort Moultrie. Arguably the worst President of the U.S.A., Buchanan was nevertheless a Democrat and had been a consistent supporter of southern interests in Congress.

If there was an official preparing for war, it wasn't southerner Major Anderson, but southerner and Secretary of War, John Floyd. In 1859, after the raid on Harper's Ferry, Floyd moved 115,000 small arms to southern arsenals. After he was accused of selling government property to cronies for pennies on the dollar of their real value, Secretary Floyd was allowed to resign. One of Floyd's final acts in office before declaring himself a Secessionist and moving south, was to transfer 125 cannon from Pittsburg to arsenals in Mississippi and Texas (later countermanded by President Buchanan). See C. Vann Woodward (Southern historian), "Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct", pg. 86-96. Floyd was later appointed a Confederate General and was one of two CSA genrals that "skedaddled" from Fort Donelson, leaving Gen. Simon Bolivar Buckner, the honor of unconditionally surrendering to Buckner's former friend, U.S.

[TexConfederate]

Mr. Curtis,

Just for the fun of it... Shelby Foote was not an historian, I can say that because he said so. His three volume masterpiece is just that; but relies on secondary sources rather than primary, and offers the telling of a story rather than a thesis. This is the notable quality of prose that separates historians from story tellers.

I used to belong to a listserv of AP teachers who spent way too much time a couple years back arguing this point. It resurfaced from time to time. I took myself off the listserv for the constant beating of a dead horse's dusty remains...

The argument on that thread revolved much the way the argument has here - the South's understanding of its right to secede. The objection stemmed from Mr. Foote's comments in Ken Burns' film, The Civil War. In fact, Mr. Foote took one step into the historian's shoes by proclaiming the southern states wouldn't have joined the union if they couldn't have left it. Not only is there no evidence to back this assertion up, but the facts point in the opposite direction. [refer to NY and VA conditional ratification clauses]

Not looking to argue, but I saw your note and my memory was jogged...

But that is just the point. Virginia reserved the right to take back the powers loaned to the Federal Government. I agree with Shelby Foote. The South would have never joined the Union, if they couldn't leave it....:rolleyes:

[Southern Cal]

With respect, I don't believe that secession is irrelevant because of what southerners thought and believed at the time? I guess the idea is that since we are not walking in their boots, we cannot judge their actions or what they said in 1860? Hundreds of years ago educated people once believed the world was flat and other educated people believed it was round. Because there was such strong disagreement about the shape of the earth then, does it follow that we cannot judge now whether the earth has any shape at all? Common sense dictates otherwise. Viewing history through the lens of subjective cultural "relativism", then the Holocaust is also irrelevant since the Nazis in the 1920's and 1930's, truly believed that Jews were racially inferior, were responsible for Germany's economic problems, were in league with the Communists, generally posed a grave threat to western civilization, and therefore deserved the "final solution". Viewing history through this lens of subjective cultural "relativism" means the crimes of the Nazis then cannot be judged now. Common sense dictates otherwise. I don't see secession as an exception.

[VA Soldier]

When we pause to examine history and begin to Judge people on whether what they did was right or wrong, we must take into account, the value systems, or standards of that day. Obviously what occured in NAZI Germany was a horrible crime against humanity. When found out by other people around the world at the time, they agreed.
There are many things we can reflect and say, that was wrong, it should have never happened. Hopefully, we can use this understanding of our past to prevent such attrocities from reoccuring-the old "Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" thread. That and the law, very often does take intentions into consideration such as the difference between 1st degree murder and 2nd degree murder, or even manslaughter.
During the 1860's the idea of Secession was hotly debated because it was one thing never explicitly outlined in the Constitution. To me personally, to others, and probably others at the time the fact that A. states had voted to enter the Union so they could vote to leave it and B. those powers not specifically mentioned in the constitution are reserved for the states or the people. Since 11 states held either some form of vote or convention to determine this, and at least a half a million people went to the field to defend this vote for four years, I would say this is what a decent majority wanted. The Unionist sentiment of the southern states was overrated at the time. The issue has never been settled on a legal question because it was settled by military force. This is why there is still an "issue" to many people, just as some believe it was illegal for the Confederate states to secceed, there are those who believe it was illegal for the US to use military force to try and stop them, coersion was a major factor in the latter states leaving the Union.
Per the orginial post of the thread, I agree that the seizing of Federal property prior to formal secession was illegal, but for whatever reason, at no time during or afterwards did the US gov't seem to care as they proceeded to wage a formal war against the Confederacy and did not bother to arrest or try anyone either during or after on the charge of treason. If it makes anyone feel better, call it a police action but if the states had not formally left the US to form their own nation then why did Lincoln call for a blockade-a war tactic, and why did those 11 southern states have to be readmitted to the Union-You can not re-admit something that never left.

D. Jackson

[CUPP]

Key saying it was the War Of Northern Aggression

sorry to get off subject but read MEIN KAMPF Hitlers self written book that he wrote while he was in prison. You will get a real good reason why he blams the jewish religon for everything and you ge to venture into the mind of a very disturbed man . My grammer may be off sense I just worked a 14 hour shift here in GTMO CUBA so sorry im in a rush.


Edward Cupp

[7thMDYankee]

Sir,

My point is that the South did join the Union removing the condition that they "could" leave it. James Madison returned the ratification measures to NY and VA until that clause was removed! In other words, Shelby Foote said something that has no documented basis. The documentation tells us that NY and VA (being large states) wanted some right to break away if things got out of hand. Madison said (and I'll paraphrase), "No way, I don't think so... go fix this, because Congress agrees with me..." They did.

What documentation supports his assertion?

[7thMDYankee]

Lincoln also left all the stars on the flag... and he didn't take 4 stripes off of it either. Blackade vs. quarantine... JFK wrestled with those semantics as well. Honestly, does it matter?

As for readmission... if the authorities in a given jurisdiction comit treason they need to be replaced when the issue is settled and a local government re-established. That was reconstruction... readmission was simply a term to get those states back on equal footing with the rest of the Union. The seceded states are still listed as having joined the Union on their original dates, not the reconstructed ones.

As for arrests... that's what all those pardons were about.

It seems as if the expectation of Lincoln [who swore to support and defend the Constitution] was to assume and agree with the southern states and simply let them go and seize federal property, and to just ignore the fact that the southerners were firing on federal property... am I wrong?

Somehow this discussion is stuck on the point of the legality of secession. A couple references have been made to the effect I have not extended historical context to the southerners. This is simply not true. I am fully aware the southerners felt they were legally seceding from the Union... I am also fully aware that a bunch of people living in the North didn't agree with them. Sam Watkins thought this was settled. I am prepared to agree to disagree.

What I can't understand is how we are to simply accept the "right" of a state to do something, but deny the counter-argument that they didn't have that right?!? I need that explained to me.

[8th TexCav]

What I can't understand is how we are to simply accept the "right" of a state to do something, but deny the counter-argument that they didn't have that right?!? I need that explained to me.

David,

I agree with your statement listed above. I happen to believe that the right exists. That does not make it correct. As I stated in one of my earlier posts but did not elaborate on, I would like to see one of our better history departments/legal schools research the issue. To have both sides presented before a group of legal scholars based on 19th century context. To do it in modern context would bring too many biases based on what we know to have happened since the war.

I am not sure that the idea that I have outlined would ever resolve the issue but it would be entertaining to watch or read. Perhaps it would give each side of the argument a better insight into the other's point of view of the "Right."

[TexConfederate]

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788. (1)
Virginia to wit

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions and under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the Union into danger by a delay with a hope of obtaining Amendments previous to the Ratification, We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed in the Words following; .

Done in Convention this twenty Sixth day of June one thousand seven hundred and eighty eight

By Order of the Convention

EDMD PENDLETON President [SEAL.]

Virginia towit:

Your proof, Sir......:)

[Southern Cal]

"People of the United States" are mentioned in the above quote concerning the protection of their rights under the Constitution from Federal officials. I don't see any mention of the people of Virginia, individual states, or a right to secede. The clear language above seems similar to the 10th Amendment, either written by or greatly influenced by James Madson, himself a Virginian. It appears a far stretch to use this wording in Virginia's Assembly resolution to assert a right to secede, especially in light of Madison's own comments against secession quoted earlier in this thread. Another point is made perfectly clear in Madison's comments was that individual states should never encourage or tolerate violations of law under the Constitution while still part of the United States. With the exception of South Carolina, the individual states listed at the beginning of this thread did exactly that. These states violated U.S. laws before they seceded, through armed State Militias or state sanctioned armed bodies. Unionists maintained that these acts constituted armed rebellion against the United States, and treason. There is earlier precedent for this argument. Challenged with "nullification", President Andrew Jackson, originally from South Carolinia and a slaveholder, threatened his S. Carolinian "friends" that he would immediately lead an army to suppress any rebellion if South Carolina tried to secede from the United States. President Zachary Taylor, from Mississippi? and also a slaveholder, threatened to invade the South when S. Carolinians later resumed their secession threats. What Southerners never dared to attempt when "Old Hickory" and "Old Rough and Ready" were in office, they tried to pull off with a vacillating, lame duck, and weak President Buchanan. Eventually, even Buchanan, a Democrat and consistent southern sympathiser, refused to recognize South Carolina's independence from the United States, though he "dodged the bullet" and left for Lincoln the dirty work of figuring out how to enforce the law on the horns of the secession or rebellion dilemma.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

"People of the United States" are mentioned in the above quote concerning the protection of their rights under the Constitution from Federal officials. I don't see any mention of the people of Virginia, individual states, or a right to secede. The clear language above seems similar to the 10th Amendment, either written by or greatly influenced by James Madson, himself a Virginian. It appears a far stretch to use this wording in Virginia's Assembly resolution to assert a right to secede, especially in light of Madison's own comments against secession quoted earlier in this thread. Another point is made perfectly clear in Madison's comments was that individual states should never encourage or tolerate violations of law under the Constitution while still part of the United States. With the exception of South Carolina, the individual states listed at the beginning of this thread did exactly that. These states violated U.S. laws before they seceded, through armed State Militias or state sanctioned armed bodies. Unionists maintained that these acts constituted armed rebellion against the United States, and treason. There is earlier precedent for this argument. Challenged with "nullification", President Andrew Jackson, originally from South Carolinia and a slaveholder, threatened his S. Carolinian "friends" that he would immediately lead an army to suppress any rebellion if South Carolina tried to secede from the United States. President Zachary Taylor, from Mississippi? and also a slaveholder, threatened to invade the South when S. Carolinians later resumed their secession threats. What Southerners never dared to attempt when "Old Hickory" and "Old Rough and Ready" were in office, they tried to pull off with a vacillating, lame duck, and weak President Buchanan. Eventually, even Buchanan, a Democrat and consistent southern sympathiser, refused to recognize South Carolina's independence from the United States, though he "dodged the bullet" and left for Lincoln the dirty work of figuring out how to enforce the law on the horns of the secession or rebellion dilemma.

Sir,

I follow most of what you stated, with exception to your reference that armed state militias somehow violated the Constitution or Federal Authority. State militias have a history longer than this country, and stem back to the days of British Colonialism. State militias had a large role in our freedom as Americans during the American Revolution, the War of 1812...and even in our Expansionist Period the Mexican War!

While many more militias were activated in the few years leading up to the American Civil War; this was seen both North and South, and was not exclusive to a particular geographic region.

Further, state militias continued to operate post-War...and eventually became what is today the National Guard.

Paul

[goatgirl]

For anyone interested, here is Alabama Gov. Moore’s explanation of why Mount Vernon was taken prior to secession.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Montgomery, Ala., January 4 [?], 1861.
To his Excellency JAMES BUCHANAN, President of the Union States:

SIR: In a spirit of frankness I hasten to inform you the letter that by my order Fort Morgan and Fort Gaines, and the United States Arsenal at Mount Vernon were on yesterday* peacefully occupied, and are now held by the troops of the States of Alabama. That this act on my part may not be misunderstood by the Government of the United States, I proceed to state the motives which have induced it, and the reasons which justify it, and also the course of conduct with which I design to follow that act.

A convention of the people of this State will, in pursuance of a previously-enacted law, assemble on the 7th instant. I was fully convinced by the evidences which I had that that convention would at an early day, in the exercise of an authority which in my judgment of right belongs to it, withdraw the State of Alabama from the Government of the United States and place it in the attitude of a separate and independent power. Being thus convinced I deemed it my duty to take every precautionary step to make the secession of the State peaceful, and prevent detriment to her people.

While entertaining such a conviction as to my duty, I received such information as left but little, if any, room to doubt that the Government of the United States, anticipating the secession of Alabama, and preparing to maintain its authority within this State by force, even to the shedding of the blood and the sacrifice of the lives of the people, was about to re-enforce those forts and put a guard over the arsenal. Having that information, it was but an act of self-defense, and the plainest dictate of prudence, to anticipate and guard against the contemplated movement of the authorities of the General Government. Appreciating, as I am sure you do, the courage and spirit of our people, you must be sensible that no attempt at the coercion of the State, or at the enforcement by military power of the authority of the United States within its jurisdiction in contravention of the ordinance of secession can be effectual, unless our utmost capacity for resistance can be exhausted. It would have been an unwise policy, suicidal in its character, to have permitted the Government of the United States to have made undisturbed preparations within this State to enforce by war and bloodshed an authority which it is fixed purpose of the people of the State to resist to the uttermost of their power. A policy so manifestly unwise would probably have been overruled by an excited and discontented people, and popular violence might have accomplished that which has been done by the State much more appropriately and much more consistently with the prospect of peace and the interests of the parties concerned.

The purpose with which my order was given and has been executed was to avoid and not to provoke hostilities between the State and Federal Government. There is no object, save the honor and independence of my State, which is by me so ardently desired as the preservation of amicable relations between this State and the Government of the United States. That the secession of the State, made necessary by the conduct of others, may be peaceful is my prayer as well as the prayer of every patriotic man in the State.

An inventory of the property in the forts and arsenal has been ordered, and the strictest care will be taken to prevent the injury or destruction of it while peaceable relations continue to subsist, as I trust will. The forts and arsenal will be held by my order only for the precautionary purpose for which they were taken, and subject to the control of the convention of the people to assemble on the 7th instant.

With distinguished consideration, I am your obedient servant,
A. B. MOORE.

[7thMDYankee]

Paul,

Think to the Civil Rights era. When Arkansas Nat'l Guard troops blocked African American students from entering Central High School in Little Rock, the president nationalized them and sent the 101st to enforce the law. The actions of the Arkansas officials was deemed illegal. Just as if they were seizing federal property (refer to the original post) in preparation for secession.

In other words, the Arkansas Nat'l Guard were following the orders of their governor, but the governor could not violate federal law. Eisenhower had the 14th Amendment to bolster his claims in this states' rights issue - something Lincoln did not have.

Applied to the point, however, [and Mr. Jay correct me if I have mistaken your comments] Presidents Jackson and Taylor merely exercised that power [which Eisenhower did have] they assumed they possessed against SC over nullification issues. President Buchanan avoided it altogether - thus the stage was set.

The historical record clearly shows us SC felt they had a right to secede, as did much of the South. The record does not demonstrate the right of secession actually existed [I refer to the excellent argument put forth by Mr. Jay] - it was a question that needed answering. Some thought the war did that, apparently not.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Sir,

I follow most of what you stated, with exception to your reference that armed state militias somehow violated the Constitution or Federal Authority. State militias have a history longer than this country, and stem back to the days of British Colonialism. State militias had a large role in our freedom as Americans during the American Revolution, the War of 1812...and even in our Expansionist Period the Mexican War!

While many more militias were activated in the few years leading up to the American Civil War; this was seen both North and South, and was not exclusive to a particular geographic region.

Further, state militias continued to operate post-War...and eventually became what is today the National Guard.

Paul

Dave,

I agree with what you stated. If you read my post; you'll see that I was only contesting that the existance of an armed state militia could not violate the Constitution or Federal Authority.

There was alot of Fire-Spitting, by states which threatened seccession, and that's really where the contest to Federal Authority lays.

[7thMDYankee]

Got it now... next time type a little slower for me!

[TexConfederate]

"People of the United States" are mentioned in the above quote concerning the protection of their rights under the Constitution from Federal officials. I don't see any mention of the people of Virginia, individual states, or a right to secede. The clear language above seems similar to the 10th Amendment, either written by or greatly influenced by James Madson, himself a Virginian. It appears a far stretch to use this wording in Virginia's Assembly resolution to assert a right to secede, especially in light of Madison's own comments against secession quoted earlier in this thread. Another point is made perfectly clear in Madison's comments was that individual states should never encourage or tolerate violations of law under the Constitution while still part of the United States. With the exception of South Carolina, the individual states listed at the beginning of this thread did exactly that. These states violated U.S. laws before they seceded, through armed State Militias or state sanctioned armed bodies. Unionists maintained that these acts constituted armed rebellion against the United States, and treason. There is earlier precedent for this argument. Challenged with "nullification", President Andrew Jackson, originally from South Carolinia and a slaveholder, threatened his S. Carolinian "friends" that he would immediately lead an army to suppress any rebellion if South Carolina tried to secede from the United States. President Zachary Taylor, from Mississippi? and also a slaveholder, threatened to invade the South when S. Carolinians later resumed their secession threats. What Southerners never dared to attempt when "Old Hickory" and "Old Rough and Ready" were in office, they tried to pull off with a vacillating, lame duck, and weak President Buchanan. Eventually, even Buchanan, a Democrat and consistent southern sympathiser, refused to recognize South Carolina's independence from the United States, though he "dodged the bullet" and left for Lincoln the dirty work of figuring out how to enforce the law on the horns of the secession or rebellion dilemma.




"may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression "

It seems to me that Virginia and the South obviously thought that they were being "oppressed" or "injured"..................:)

[flattop32355]

"may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression "

It seems to me that Virginia and the South obviously thought that they were being "oppressed" or "injured"..................:)

Is that in the final, signed legal document, or is that the part that Madison sent back and was removed?

[7thMDYankee]

Bernard,

It was in the final version, but it is not a clear statement about secession. Clearly Madison didn't object to it as he did the original/rejected version. Thus, to imply secession from that phrase is just that - it is implied, not explicit [this has been my point all along]. If it was explicit, my guess is Madison would have objected again, but he didn't.

The resolution also contained [though not included in the post] Virginia's proposals for what became the Bill of Rights. Reading through these many clauses one can come away with different interpretations. The radical states' righters will argue they are the blueprint of secession. The radical individual righters will argue they are the blueprint of a libertarian society. Most of us will fall in between.

Bottom line - IMHO - the argument was settled by the war. It should have been settled by the SCOTUS.

[Southern Cal]

So the South thought it was repressed and injured when the White House was still occupied by a Democrat and southern sympathiser, while the U.S. Congress was still in session, while the federal court system was still operating, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a pro-southern Virginian.

So the Governor of Alabama "peacefully" occupied Federal military installations with his armed State Militia. A rather self serving explanation for violating Federal law while Alabama was still part of the United States.

[tompritchett]

For anyone interested, here is Alabama Gov. Moore’s explanation of why Mount Vernon was taken prior to secession.

Thank you for that information. When I read the initial post in this thread, basically I surmised that most of the property had been seized to preclude an armed Federal response to the state's secession, but I had no hard evidence to support my assumptions. It is interesting to note that the governor of Arkansas apparently misjudged the strength of the secessionist movement in his state as he had the two arsenals seized during the first wave of secessions prior to Sumter, but the state itself did not secede until May 6, 1861 after Sumter and Lincoln's militia call up.

[TexConfederate]

That is the final document.....and I believe it reserves secession as a right, quite clearly.

[TexConfederate]

["Bottom line - IMHO - the argument was settled by the war."

Respectfully, I must disagree.


"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."

"The contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a new and enlarged arena." Jefferson Davis, address to the Mississippi legislature - 16 years after the wars end.

"The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form."

[TexConfederate]

So the South thought it was repressed and injured when the White House was still occupied by a Democrat and southern sympathiser, while the U.S. Congress was still in session, while the federal court system was still operating, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a pro-southern Virginian.

So the Governor of Alabama "peacefully" occupied Federal military installations with his armed State Militia. A rather self serving explanation for violating Federal law while Alabama was still part of the United States.


The South thought it was oppressed for many reasons, some imagined,some not. They didn't imagine that northern abolitionists constantly stirred up trouble, sent inflammatory literature thru the mails, poisoned wells, and set fires. They also didn't imagine the insults and trouble being stirred up by radicals in Congress, like Charles Sumner. They also didn't imagine that Lincoln and the Republicans were planning to restrict the spread of slavery, which was nothing short of an economic threat, in 1860.

The South had every reason to fear a Lincoln Administration. Those fears became reality, as history proved.;)

[7thMDYankee]

I'm not the brightest in the class, but it seems to me that if Madison rejected a resolution specifically detailing the right of a state to secede once - he'd do it again. Since the first resolution was rejected, and the second one (the one cited above) wasn't - I am forced by logic to conclude (at least the way Madison read the document) that secession was certainly not reserved.

I'm just going to agree to disagree... But, I do have one parting question: If the right of secession is so clear, according to your reading of the document; then why did Madison not object to the highlighted language after having sent the resolution back that had a conditional clause, that is, a specific right to secede?

I'd really like that explained to me. Again, I am not the smartest around here, and that type of reasoning just doesn't add up for me.

[TexConfederate]

I have never seen the other document you speak of, so it is hard for me to reply to your question. I can tell you many of the founding fathers wrote of the right of secession, and that most people at the time accepted it as a given.

[flattop32355]

I have never seen the other document you speak of, so it is hard for me to reply to your question. I can tell you many of the founding fathers wrote of the right of secession, and that most people at the time accepted it as a given.

Is there empirical evidence that "most" people accepted it as a given, rather than "some" people?

[TexConfederate]

Is there empirical evidence that "most" people accepted it as a given, rather than "some" people?
Well, I know that the New England States did, and New Jersey, and ALL of the Southern States, at the time, so that certainly seems to qualify? (or don't you think so?

[Southern Cal]

Of course southerners had valid grievances. The Tariff imposed on imported goods made them more expensive than northen goods, benefitting northern industrial and commercial interests at the expense of southerners. The Navigation Acts unfairly benefitted Northen shipping interests. Lax enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act by Northern States and Cities illegally deprived southerners of their "property", still legal under the U.S. Constitution. The Compromise of 1850, in general, limited slave holders from taking their "property" further into U.S. territory. It is the question of how hot-headed southern politicians chose to resolve their grievances that gave rise to this thread in the first place.

Take the above mentioned Senator Charles Sumner (boo-hiss!), for example. Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina tried to make sure that Sen. Charles Sumner wasn't a threat to the South in 1856, by beating him unconscious with a cane on the floor of the Senate for "insulting" South Carolina and his relative (Sen. Butler?), subsequent to a speech about "bleeding" Kansas. Senator Sumner was sitting at his desk at the time of the assault, taken unawares, and never allowed to stand or to defend himself. Others trying to stop the assault were prevented by one of Rep. Brooks' friends. The beating only stopped when Rep. Preston's cane broke. Southern admirers sent Brooks dozens of canes. Senator Sumner never fully recovered from this attack, and only enough to resume his post after three years convalescence. Brooks indignantly resigned from the House of Representatives after scathing criticism, with no remorse whatesoever. A duel was considered but Preston Brooks felt that Senator Sumner was beneath his class for his coarse remarks, and therefore only deserving of a thrashing. On the floor of the Senate of the United States! Obviously, it wasn't just northern abolitionists who were guilty of provoking sectional hostility.

Southern states seized Federal property before they seceded, while they were still bound by U.S. law. Of course the excuse was to protect these military stores and forts... that is, preemptively, to protect them from being secured by Federal troops. Whatever the excuse, while still part of the United States, don't these acts constitute armed insurrection?

Be careful of quoting Jefferson Davis. In his last recorded speech, President Davis said:

"The past is dead; let it bury its dead, its hopes, and its aspirations. Before you lies the future, a future full of golden promise, a future of expanding national glory, before which all the world shall stand amazed. Let me beseech you to lay aside all rancor, all bitter sectional feeling, and to take your places in the ranks of those who will bring about a consummation to be wished - a united country."

-Jefferson Davis, 1889

[TexConfederate]

I don't suppose you have read Sumner's "Bleeding Kansas" speech?
It was very insulting. That doesn't excuse Preston Brooks for "beating him senseless", but he did have a right to be angry.

The point in quoting Davis, was that he believed that the cause of secession was a right cause, until the end. He died unrepentant, and never asked for a pardon because of that belief. I believe, like he did, that at some point, the issue will be revisited.

[flattop32355]

Well, I know that the New England States did, and New Jersey, and ALL of the Southern States, at the time, so that certainly seems to qualify? (or don't you think so?

I think certain people had the notion when it served their purpose. I think the majority of people in those states quoted didn't give a rat's tee-heiney-boo about the concept until agitated about it, and even then a goodly number didn't like the idea.

[Southern Cal]

Whether Jefferson Davis repented of his seccessionist beliefs or not, in the end it appears from his final speech that he acknowledged political realities and that being a practical man, he urged fellow southerners to put the past behind them, move ahead, and get over it. Some who still refuse to get over it might well take President Davis' remarks to heart. I know of one young man who is amusing in that he refuses to take any "hits" at reenactments due to some notion about not wanting to dishonor the uniform of those that fought for the Confederacy and the just cause, etc. Each to his own I guess, but personally, historical fruit is preferable to revisionist nuts.

In 1860, while all the organs of government and politics were still working, but because President elect Lincoln held firm that slavery should not extend further into U.S. territory, seven southern states seceded. The Vice President of the Confederacy confirmed this was so. Facts is facts. When these southern states seized Federal property while still part of the United States, and when Confederate officers opened hostilities by bombarding United States troops at Fort Sumter, the "fire eaters" of the CSA threw down the gauntlet, took their case out of the political arena and onto the field of honor. In that court, the south lost their secession case with prejudice and without further appeal. Case closed.

[jthlmnn]

I offer a letter from Madison to Hamilton written during the ratification debates in New York and subsequent to Virginia's ratification.

I wish I had the time to reread the debates of the Virginia Ratification Convention. I believe that is where you would find the original notion stated and Madison's response, which shaped the phrasing of the final resolution. Maybe someone else has the pertinent debate saved or bookmarked somewhere.






To Alexander Hamilton

[July 20, 1788]

N. York Sunday Evening

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.

This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection. http://www.constitution.org/jm/17880720_hamilton.htm

[TexConfederate]

Whether Jefferson Davis repented of his seccessionist beliefs or not, in the end it appears from his final speech that he acknowledged political realities and that being a practical man, he urged fellow southerners to put the past behind them, move ahead, and get over it. Some who still refuse to get over it might well take President Davis' remarks to heart. I know of one young man who is amusing in that he refuses to take any "hits" at reenactments due to some notion about not wanting to dishonor the uniform of those that fought for the Confederacy and the just cause, etc. Each to his own I guess, but personally, historical fruit is preferable to revisionist nuts.

In 1860, while all the organs of government and politics were still working, but because President elect Lincoln held firm that slavery should not extend further into U.S. territory, seven southern states seceded. The Vice President of the Confederacy confirmed this was so. Facts is facts. When these southern states seized Federal property while still part of the United States, and when Confederate officers opened hostilities by bombarding United States troops at Fort Sumter, the "fire eaters" of the CSA threw down the gauntlet, took their case out of the political arena and onto the field of honor. In that court, the south lost their secession case with prejudice and without further appeal. Case closed.
Well....political beliefs and reenacting do not mix. I put on the "blue suit" quite often. I honor those men that fought, regardless of whether I agree with their beliefs. They still were fighting for what they believed was their understanding of what this nation was about. Not taking a hit, even IF you believe the Southern cause was just or not, is plain ridiculous. I rarely discuss the subject in the field, unless I am portraying 'first person'.
Reeenacting is about portraying history, and nuts that can't separate the past from reality, have no place in this hobby.

I think that if certain political changes ever occur, you will find that the case for secession is FAR from closed. If you remember, during the last presidential election, some in the "red states" were suggesting just that!
(and I am NOT inferring the South would "rise" again! LOL )
Ain't gonna happen! :)

[Southern Cal]

As an aside, when California was to be admitted into the Union, there was a furor from southern politicians as this move would unbalance the U.S. Senate in favor of the North. So there was a proposal to admit "Northern California" as a state, and keep "Southern California" as a "Territory", where slavery would have been permitted since Southern California lies below a certain latitude demarcation on the map. Didn't happen obviously.

[Frenchie]

... and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a pro-southern Virginian.

Roger B. Taney was born in Calvert County, Maryland. Taneytown is named for his family. I don't know if he was pro-Southern; I do know he was pro-slavery. If pro-slavery means pro-Southern, then it's no wonder that those defending the South have to work hard to separate slavery from the secession debate; the reason for doing so is obvious. The problem is that the preservation of slavery was a major reason for secession and rebellion. The other big problem is that the Confederacy was clearly the initiator of civil war. I'm glad I've never felt obligated to deny or ignore the importance of slavery or to justify armed rebellion.

[TexConfederate]

Roger B. Taney was born in Calvert County, Maryland. Taneytown is named for his family. I don't know if he was pro-Southern; I do know he was pro-slavery. If pro-slavery means pro-Southern, then it's no wonder that those defending the South have to work hard to separate slavery from the secession debate; the reason for doing so is obvious. The problem is that the preservation of slavery was a major reason for secession and rebellion. The other big problem is that the Confederacy was clearly the initiator of civil war. I'm glad I've never felt obligated to deny or ignore the importance of slavery or to justify armed rebellion.


I personally, don't have to deny or otherwise. My ancestors didn't fight for slavery one way or the other. They fought because some people were invading their homeland.

People also seem to forget in their quest to villify slavery, that it was 100% LEGAL at the time of secession. I don't have a problem with the slavery question. If I had lived in 1860, and people from another section were attempting to take away MY property, that had been bought legally, I would have fought as well..........

[tompritchett]

The other big problem is that the Confederacy was clearly the initiator of civil war.

I am not sure that it is as black and white as you are trying to make it. Yes, the Confederacy fired the first shots at the other's flag when they fired on Ft. Sumter. But at Ft. Sumter, they were trying to force the surrender of troops stationed within their borders in a position that could potentially block shipping in and out of one of their major ports. Yes, I personally think that they over-reacted to the perceived threat and insult to their supposed sovereignty, but this is drastically different from actually marching an army into the territory of another "country" for the express purpose of capturing its government and reabsorbing it back into its territory. IMHO, the latter action is much more an act of initiating a war than the former action.

[jthlmnn]

I personally, don't have to deny or otherwise. My ancestors didn't fight for slavery one way or the other. They fought because some people were invading their homeland.

It wasn't a separate country, so there was no invasion. Federal force was brought to bear to suppress armed insurrection and rebellion. (Which begins another lap around the mulberry bush ;-) )


People also seem to forget in their quest to villify slavery, that it was 100% LEGAL at the time of secession. I don't have a problem with the slavery question. If I had lived in 1860, and people from another section were attempting to take away MY property, that had been bought legally, I would have fought as well..........

Yes, where it existed it was legal. Nationwide, it was constitutional, but many states had already outlawed it. Its morality, however, had long been called into question, not to mention the inherent contradiction between slavery and the espoused liberty of the United States. No quest is needed to villify it. Slavery villifies itself. The mental gymnastics employed to justify it, then and now, is a true quest.

As to "taking away property", all moral and philosophical judgements aside, in the early stages of the war, Federal forces were instructed to return said "property" to their owners. Most did just that. (Not all, most.) Only when it dawned on them that, if the rebellious owners were to insist on the notion that these people were "property", then said "property" should be treated as "contraband" and not returned.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

It wasn't a separate country, so there was no invasion. Federal force was brought to bear to suppress armed insurrection and rebellion. (Which begins another lap around the mulberry bush ;-) )



Yes, where it existed it was legal. Nationwide, it was constitutional, but many states had already outlawed it. Its morality, however, had long been called into question, not to mention the inherent contradiction between slavery and the espoused liberty of the United States. No quest is needed to villify it. Slavery villifies itself. The mental gymnastics employed to justify it, then and now, is a true quest.

As to "taking away property", all moral and philosophical judgements aside, in the early stages of the war, Federal forces were instructed to return said "property" to their owners. Most did just that. (Not all, most.) Only when it dawned on them that, if the rebellious owners were to insist on the notion that these people were "property", then said "property" should be treated as "contraband" and not returned.


WHOA this thread has strayed. Let's try to keep this on track...Secession vs. Insurection!

The debate about the legality/morality etc. of slavery is an entirely different debate.

Paul

[TexConfederate]

"It wasn't a separate country, so there was no invasion. Federal force was brought to bear to suppress armed insurrection and rebellion. (Which begins another lap around the mulberry bush )"

Indeed it DOES bring up another issue.
In the 1860's, one's home WAS one's country, or at least by the Southern viewpoint.

Robert E. Lee felt that way, and so did my ancestors.
Therefore, from their point of view, an invasion was indeed taking place.
One section of the country trying to enforce their will on the other thru coercion.

[Pvt Schnapps]

"It wasn't a separate country, so there was no invasion. Federal force was brought to bear to suppress armed insurrection and rebellion. (Which begins another lap around the mulberry bush )"

Indeed it DOES bring up another issue.
In the 1860's, one's home WAS one's country, or at least by the Southern viewpoint.

Robert E. Lee felt that way, and so did my ancestors.
Therefore, from their point of view, an invasion was indeed taking place.
One section of the country trying to enforce their will on the other thru coercion.

Well, that's not really the complete truth, either. Not all Texans were crazy about insurrection. That included Sam Huston himself, as well as other settlers. Some of them were my people:

See: http://www.meyerbedandbreakfast.com/comfort-tx-attractions.htm

[In the Confederacy, "die Gedanken" were not at all free.]

"Treue Der Union" Monument

Dedicated in 1866, this is the only monument to the Union cause south of the Mason Dixon line and one of only six sites in the nation which may fly the American flag at half mast in perpetuity. It marks the final resting place of men from Comfort and the surrounding area killed in the "Battle of the Nueces" in 1862. Opposed to slavery and secession, the German settlers of the area suffered greatly during the Civil War. Attempting to leave the state, the group was surprised and killed by Confederate raiders and their bodies recovered after the war ended.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Well, that's not really the complete truth, either. Not all Texans were crazy about insurrection. That included Sam Huston himself, as well as other settlers. Some of them were my people:

See: http://www.meyerbedandbreakfast.com/comfort-tx-attractions.htm

[In the Confederacy, "die Gedanken" were not at all free.]

"Treue Der Union" Monument

Dedicated in 1866, this is the only monument to the Union cause south of the Mason Dixon line and one of only six sites in the nation which may fly the American flag at half mast in perpetuity. It marks the final resting place of men from Comfort and the surrounding area killed in the "Battle of the Nueces" in 1862. Opposed to slavery and secession, the German settlers of the area suffered greatly during the Civil War. Attempting to leave the state, the group was surprised and killed by Confederate raiders and their bodies recovered after the war ended.

It brings up a good point that not everyone was in support of splitting away from the Union, just by the nature of being from the South. I was unaware of the "Battle of Neuces", but this reminds me of the Outer Banks (OB) on the coast of North Carolina. The OB was predominately pro-Union, and it didn't take much for an agreed Federal Occupation of Hateras Island and Roanoke Island. By the civilian population, they probably felt as though the Federals offered them some protection against their Secessionist "statesmen".

I'd be very careful quoting Lee, Jackson and others when it comes to secession...much of their writings detest it.

[Pvt Schnapps]

I'd be very careful quoting Lee, Jackson and others when it comes to secession...much of their writings detest it.

I got the sense from Lee's war-time correspondence that he had a "pox on both your houses" attitude toward the politicians on both sides, resenting them for letting their differences lead us into armed conflict. That attitude, and the pain attending the choice between Virginia and the United States, is one of the things that makes him the great tragic hero of American history.

A huge problem we face in talking about the causes and nature of the civil war is the fact that it never has really ended, and taking sides is hugely tempting. Beyond that, so much legend and hagiography attaches to the war that it's more a national epic like the Mahabaratta or Chanson de Roland than an actual series of events subject to objective study.

If we could just get a little distance then perhaps we could talk more about how the citizens of the world's greatest republic ended up unable to settle their differences peacefully, and what that means for us now and going forward.

In the meantime, of course, this conversation is kind of fun, too.

[7thMDYankee]

Tom,

I disagree. The scenario you described also existed in the Pacific during the 1930s and early 1940s. Japan felt threatened by the presence of the US and sought to remove that threat before it materialized. The motivation behind that Japan's removing that threat was the perception that the area was reserved for them (Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere), and not the US.

"IMHO, the latter action is much more an act of initiating a war than the former action."

By this definition the US started the war in the Pacific by occupying Tokyo (or the road to that place), and not the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor.

While I confess it is off topic... the similiarity is eerie. Please tell me I am reading your comments incorrectly, and set me in the right direction.

[jthlmnn]

I found the article connected by the link below to be most interesting. I believe Mr. Fielding does a very good job of describing three major perspectives on the nature of of our nation prior to the war, and how these perspectives shaped differing views on unilateral secession. Whether one agrees with his conclusion or not, I believe the article supplies some enlightenment for all of us.



http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/98/refight.html

[tompritchett]

Tom,

I disagree. The scenario you described also existed in the Pacific during the 1930s and early 1940s. Japan felt threatened by the presence of the US and sought to remove that threat before it materialized. The motivation behind that Japan's removing that threat was the perception that the area was reserved for them (Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere), and not the US.

"IMHO, the latter action is much more an act of initiating a war than the former action."

By this definition the US started the war in the Pacific by occupying Tokyo (or the road to that place), and not the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor.

While I confess it is off topic... the similiarity is eerie. Please tell me I am reading your comments incorrectly, and set me in the right direction.

And I do not think that they are even close to being similar. While in the early 30's and 40's, Japan may have felt that most of Asia should be under their influence, none of this territory was contained within what would internationally be recognized as part of their territorial waters. Being inside Charleston harbor, Ft. Sumter was clearly within what would be internationally considered South Carolina's territorial waters. The key issue was whether or not South Carolina had the right make such a claim of sovereignty (i.e., was her secession legal). In this sense, and because Ft. Sumter "commanded the harbor" (Maj. Anderson's own words; I do believe that his move to Sumter was a sincere effort to avoid an accidental escalation of hostilities by the firing of shots between his men and the SC militia, but he was also aware of strategic importance of the Fort and may have weighed that risk of escalation as a "con" when he made his decision to move his troops). So, as ill-advised as SC's and the Confederate's actions were when they fired on Sumter to force its surrender, those actions were still only defensive in nature. At this point there was no risk of any Confederate troops invading any Nothern state to force an acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the Confederate government. In other words, although shots had been fired at Sumter, because there was no threat of a Confederate invasion, there was no need for an actual war if the North chose not to have one. However the sending of Federal troops into Virginia can only be viewed as offensive and at that point the Confederates had no choice to fight a war to defend itself or surrender its very existence. At no time prior to Pearl Harbor did the U.S or any other nation directly threaten the very existence of the Japanese government. At the most, the cutting off of trade in certain goods merely meant that the Japanese military would no longer have access to the raw materials needed for its continued growth. To me there is no comparison between the two.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

At the most, the cutting off of trade in certain goods merely meant that the Japanese military would no longer have access to the raw materials needed for its continued growth. To me there is no comparison between the two.

Now I've tried to keep WWII out of this discussion, but what you've been qouted as saying here, is precisely why many Southern individuals took to the fight (if not prompted first by the politicians).

Now, how is the increase of import/export tarriffs on Southern Commerce not equivalent in some respect to "regulating" products to the Japanese?

Is the restriction of a country's military developement not a hostile act in and of itself (even if well intentioned)?

FYI: While the restriction of Japanese Commerce (oil/coal/steel) may have been aimed at the military, it certainly had a respective impact on the civilian community as well. We were not in a hostile state with the Japanese until we limited their oil/coal/steel imports.

Was taxing Southern Tobacco/Cotton any different than this? How about increasing Tarriffs on goods being imported to the South?

[Southern Cal]

The Fielding article is very educational and useful.

A short discussion therein mentioning "armed disunion" jumped off of the page. In reading all of the other quotations in this thread, I think the nagging question I've had for years about the legal ramifications over a state occupying Federal property before seceding, is now better understood, at least by me, in terms of "armed disunion". One doesn't then have to become wrapped around the axle of the buzz words "Secession" and "Insurrection". It seems clear then, that any state, occupying Federal property with an armed militia, especially U.S. military installations, before leaving the United States, is clearly engaging in "armed disunion", irrespective of whether shots were actually fired. I'm still uncertain about the legal status of South Carolina apropos to "disunion", since they seceded first then subsumed Federal property afterwards, even entering into negotiations with the Federal government over the transfer of such public property. I'm learning a good deal more about the thinking prior to the Cvil War, and no one is calling each other "mudsills" or "traitors".

[tompritchett]

Now I've tried to keep WWII out of this discussion, but what you've been qouted as saying here, is precisely why many Southern individuals took to the fight (if not prompted first by the politicians).

Actually, I only included WWII because the previous post that tried to compare the South's actions at Ft. Sumter to Pearl Harbor. While the firing at the flag probably caused the same outrage in the North as the Japanese attack did in the U.S., I was arguing that the actions themselves were not similar at all.


Is the restriction of a countries military developement not a hostile act in and of itself?

FYI: while this may have been aimed at the military, it certainly had a respective impact on the civilian community as well. We were not in a hostile state with the Japanese until we limited their oil/coal/steel imports.

If we had been taking active measures to prevent other nations to provide those materials to the Japanese , yes it definitely would have been an hostile act. However, it is my understanding that the U.S. merely made the decision to discontinue selling scrap metals to the Japanese. The seller always has the right to chose who he sells to. Choosing to stop selling a commodity to a particular client, is not in itself a hostile action as the buyer always has the choice of finding alternate suppliers or modify his behavior such that the commodity is no longer as critical. After all, did we invade the Middle East during the Oil Embargo of the 70's - and in that case the denied commodity was even more critical to our overall economy versus just to our military?

[Southern Cal]

Japan occupied Korea in 1912, invaded Manchuria in 1931, and invaded China in 1937. I'd say that's a solid record of armed aggression in the Pacific neighborhood. That war had been going on for almost four years before the U.S. finally had enough of Japanese aggression. By 1940-1941, especially with Britian and Russia at risk of going under in another war raging in Europe and N. Africa, imperatives of American national interest were incresingly at stake. Cutting off oil and scrap metal supplies to Japan, freezing Japanese assets along with other embargo acts, had the effect of removing American industries and financial institutions from their de-facto support of the Japanese war effort against China, an ally of the United States. Certainly I wouldn't keep selling my hickory branches to a neighbor across the fishing hole when they kept turning them into baseball bats to beat up my other neighbors across the fishing hole. The anaolgy of WWII, to secession doesn't quite seem to fit.

[TexConfederate]

Well, that's not really the complete truth, either. Not all Texans were crazy about insurrection. That included Sam Huston himself, as well as other settlers. Some of them were my people:

See: http://www.meyerbedandbreakfast.com/comfort-tx-attractions.htm

[In the Confederacy, "die Gedanken" were not at all free.]

"Treue Der Union" Monument

Dedicated in 1866, this is the only monument to the Union cause south of the Mason Dixon line and one of only six sites in the nation which may fly the American flag at half mast in perpetuity. It marks the final resting place of men from Comfort and the surrounding area killed in the "Battle of the Nueces" in 1862. Opposed to slavery and secession, the German settlers of the area suffered greatly during the Civil War. Attempting to leave the state, the group was surprised and killed by Confederate raiders and their bodies recovered after the war ended.

Those Germans weren't "murdered", they were killed in battle. As far as I am concerned, they were traitors to their state, and were disposed of with more kindness than they deserved. They were on their way to join Union Forces in Brownsville, and were intercepted by Regular Confederate Cavalry, not raiders.

One other point: Sam Houston was opposed to secession, but he refused to oppose his own people, once they had decided on the course of secession.
His eldest son joined the Confederate Army, and Sam reviewed his unit, etc.

[Southern Cal]

I have relatives in the Hill Country of Texas and some were still speaking German when I stayed with my Aunt and Uncle in the summer of 1968.
While some Texans felt they had a right to secede from the Union, they didn't extend that right to German immigrants wanting to "secede" from Texas.

http://www.hal-pc.org/~dcrane/txgenweb/nueces.htm

These folks weren't in the Confederate Army, they were merely liable for conscription. These German immigrants simply didn't want to fight in a cause they were opposed to, or, some just didn't want to fight at all. They tried to leave Texas and then they tried to defend themselves. If being shot dead immediately after surrendering, or being hanged later if wounded, is "being disposed of with greater kindness than they deserved", how do YOU think these German immigrants deserved to be "disposed of"?

[tompritchett]

The anaolgy of WWII, to secession doesn't quite seem to fit.

Which is exactly the point I was making in my response to 7thMDYankee.

[flattop32355]

One section of the country trying to enforce their will on the other thru coercion.

You are absolutely correct on that one: The South tried to enforce their will upon the North through the coercion of the threat, and then the action, of withdrawal from the Union. ;)

As I've said before, neither side was spotlessly clean on the issue. Each side had agitators on the issues. Each side had those who refused to compromise their position a single iota, and sought to solve the problem to their satisfaction by armed force. Many, many others got drawn into it, for various reasons they thought valid, and not always in agreement with the reasons of the agitators.

Why don't we just cut to the chase, since nothing is going to change the minds of the principle opponents in this discussion. One side can just yell "The North was right!" and the other "The South was right!" The we can get on with what we do, which is to shoot blank cartridges at our fellow countrymen while eating interesting food and sleeping in places and ways most reasonable people won't.

[jthlmnn]

Those Germans weren't "murdered", they were killed in battle. As far as I am concerned, they were traitors to their state, and were disposed of with more kindness than they deserved. They were on their way to join Union Forces in Brownsville, and were intercepted by Regular Confederate Cavalry, not raiders.

"Then I went back to the battlefield to search for my friends and perhaps to see them once again. The sight was horrible beyond description. They had been stripped of their clothing and the bodies had been piled up one over the other in a large heap. Those who were still living when we were forced to leave them had been lined up and used as targets. Their faces and bodies completely riddled with bullets. It was heart-rending and I could not linger there." Ernst Cramer, letter dated October 30, 1862


I honor those men that fought, regardless of whether I agree with their beliefs.

For a first-hand account of the battle and the circumstances leading up to it, read "Germans in the Civil War: the letters they wrote home" (meaning the Germanic states), Kamphoefner & Helbich eds, Vogel transl, English edition 2006, University of North Carolina Press, pp. 426-438: the letters of Cramer & Simon. Most of them had joined a Frontier regiment and would have gladly served Texas by defending against Indians. The institution of the Confederate draft forced them to choose sides. They chose the Union. At the time of the battle, they were on their way to Mexico, the plan being to make their (circuitous) way north to join Federal forces. There is much more to this story and many other interesting perspectives: civilian, soldier, North & South. I highly recommend this collection of primary source documents.

[TexConfederate]

"Then I went back to the battlefield to search for my friends and perhaps to see them once again. The sight was horrible beyond description. They had been stripped of their clothing and the bodies had been piled up one over the other in a large heap. Those who were still living when we were forced to leave them had been lined up and used as targets. Their faces and bodies completely riddled with bullets. It was heart-rending and I could not linger there." Ernst Cramer, letter dated October 30, 1862



For a first-hand account of the battle and the circumstances leading up to it, read "Germans in the Civil War: the letters they wrote home" (meaning the Germanic states), Kamphoefner & Helbich eds, Vogel transl, English edition 2006, University of North Carolina Press, pp. 426-438: the letters of Cramer & Simon. Most of them had joined a Frontier regiment and would have gladly served Texas by defending against Indians. The institution of the Confederate draft forced them to choose sides. They chose the Union. At the time of the battle, they were on their way to Mexico, the plan being to make their (circuitous) way north to join Federal forces. There is much more to this story and many other interesting perspectives: civilian, soldier, North & South. I highly recommend this collection of primary source documents.
OK....let me clarify. I am FROM Texas, and I live IN Texas. I am very familiar with the story. The Cavalry regiment that defeated the Germans was led by a Officer from Missouri that had served under "Bloody Bill Anderson". He had the wounded shot, which was barbaric, but again remember that these men were traitors, trying to join the enemy, NOT Union soldiers. Big difference.
And I do honor the SOLDIERS in Blue, not traitors who not only refused military service, but tryed to betray their friends and neighbors.

[TexConfederate]

I have relatives in the Hill Country of Texas and some were still speaking German when I stayed with my Aunt and Uncle in the summer of 1968.
While some Texans felt they had a right to secede from the Union, they didn't extend that right to German immigrants wanting to "secede" from Texas.

http://www.hal-pc.org/~dcrane/txgenweb/nueces.htm

These folks weren't in the Confederate Army, they were merely liable for conscription. These German immigrants simply didn't want to fight in a cause they were opposed to, or, some just didn't want to fight at all. They tried to leave Texas and then they tried to defend themselves. If being shot dead immediately after surrendering, or being hanged later if wounded, is "being disposed of with greater kindness than they deserved", how do YOU think these German immigrants deserved to be "disposed of"?
I think I have made myself crystal clear. Many Germans served the Confederacy with honor. These tried to betray it. They were dealt with.

[7thMDYankee]

And that is why I asked you to set me straight, thank you for doing so.

I merely mentioned the analogy because the "circumstances" seemed very similar. After reading your subsequent posts I see your point more clearly, but I still disagree. I do see parallels - not exactly the same situations (never did actually), but the "similarity was eerie." Perceptions of threats, territorial claims, rights to access, recognition of soveignty, etc... [I merely mentioned it to draw a comparison for clarifying my point, nothing else.]

[7thMDYankee]

Bernard you are my hero!

[tompritchett]

And that is why I asked you to set me straight, thank you for doing so.

I understand. I was just trying to let Lawerence understand how WWII and Japan arose in this whole discussion.

[Pvt Schnapps]

I think I have made myself crystal clear. Many Germans served the Confederacy with honor. These tried to betray it. They were dealt with.

Yes, you have made yourself clear. You're still fighting the war and you've allowed your identification with one side to color your reason to such an extent that you try to justify a brutal killing that happened a century and a half ago. You could have left it at "not everyone agreed and terrible things happened on both sides," but instead you degenerated into "betray" and "dealt with."

That's the language of a Quantrill or a Milosevic, not a living historian. Is that how we're supposed to "honor" our ancestors?

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Yes, you have made yourself clear. You're still fighting the war and you've allowed your identification with one side to color your reason to such an extent that you try to justify a brutal killing that happened a century and a half ago. You could have left it at "not everyone agreed and terrible things happened on both sides," but instead you degenerated into "betray" and "dealt with."

That's the language of a Quantrill or a Milosevic, not a living historian. Is that how we're supposed to "honor" our ancestors?


Yah...what Schnapps said!

Tex; How can you claim on one hand to honor those individuals "Blue and Grey"...by donning those uniforms and interpreting history, while on the other hand being so far connected to "the cause", that you justify the murder of a certain group? I believe you mentioned you were a teacher in an earlier post...I sure hope this isn't the kind of remembrance you share in your lessons.

I have the upmost respect for a group that chooses the harder/higher road by leaving their home, friends, and family to fight for something they believe in/or fight against something they don't.

This is exactly the kind of belief/behavior that has driven severl "remembrance" groups into the gutter!

[jthlmnn]

OK....let me clarify. I am FROM Texas, and I live IN Texas. I am very familiar with the story. The Cavalry regiment that defeated the Germans was led by a Officer from Missouri that had served under "Bloody Bill Anderson". He had the wounded shot, which was barbaric, but again remember that these men were traitors, trying to join the enemy, NOT Union soldiers. Big difference.
And I do honor the SOLDIERS in Blue, not traitors who not only refused military service, but tryed to betray their friends and neighbors.

Their friends and neighbors were the ones who gathered and buried their bones, and who erected the monument. These men did not harass, raid, or pillage their neighbors (also German immigrants: freethinkers & '48ers, who had similar, anti-slavery, pro-Union sympathies), or anyone else. They followed their convictions and principles and sought to join the army of the country which they believed had first claim to their allegiance, there to honorably put their lives at risk. The battle itself was part of the risk that they understood and took. Not burying the dead, or bringing the bodies back for burial might be defensible, depending on the practical circumstances. Detention, trial, and possibly then execution of the wounded and/or captured would have been understandable, even expected. Executing the wounded, using them for taget practice, and stripping the bodies, however, is indefensible, regardless of the perceived offense.

To more directly connect this to the original intent of this thread, there were people throughout the Confedrate states who did not believe that unilateral secession was legimate. All states within the Confederacy, save South Carolina, saw regiments from their areas serving in the Union army. Others actively and forcefully resisted attempts at Confederate governance (like Jones county, Mississippi, a.k.a. "The Kingdom of Jones"). Some, like the men discussed above, attempted to join the Union army where and when they could. Some were drafted into the Confederate army and went federal at the first opportunity. (http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/recordview.cfm?content=/118/0287)
These folks, and others whose actions were less obvious, may been in the minority in the Southern states, but they and their actions contradict the notion that secession as a recognized right of the individual states was a "given". It was a muddy, unsettled, and eventually bloody issue.

[Southern Cal]

Thanks Tom, I now understand the complete context of the WWII analogy.

[Southern Cal]

I think I have made myself crystal clear. Many Germans served the Confederacy with honor. These tried to betray it. They were dealt with.

They were dealt with, indeed!

Dennis Prager, one of my favorite radio program hosts, maintains that clarity is more important than agreement. In this manner, the audience finds out exactly what a person believes, whether they agree or not.

[8th TexCav]

I think I have made myself crystal clear. Many Germans served the Confederacy with honor. These tried to betray it. They were dealt with.

Mr Curtis,

Not only this group of Germans, but many unarmed Germans settlers throughout the state were "dealt with." The murders that occurred at the hands of "real Texans" are an atrocity and an embarrassment to this great state that should not be forgotten. As a Texan, I find your attitude deeply offensive and disturbing.

This thread has given us an opportunity to discuss the opposing viewpoints on secession and insurrection as it pertained to the mid 19th century. I do not think this is the place to condone murder nor to state 21st century secession is not only and option but likely. Of course, I could be wrong.

[flattop32355]

OK....let me clarify. I am FROM Texas, and I live IN Texas. I am very familiar with the story. The Cavalry regiment that defeated the Germans was led by a Officer from Missouri that had served under "Bloody Bill Anderson". He had the wounded shot, which was barbaric, but again remember that these men were traitors, trying to join the enemy, NOT Union soldiers. Big difference.

By your above standard, then every man who served in the Confederacy deserved to be shot, as a traitor to the United States, including those wounded and, I'd assume, any who are captured as well. Since I am from the United States, and live in the United States, I believe that sanctifies my position on this issue.

Your argument seems to be running from the sublime into the ridiculous: If a deed was done in the name of the Confederacy, all is acceptable. I don't think I'll be buying into that line of thought.

[Southern Cal]

In Kansas, the Sons of Confederate Veterans have a "camp" dedicated to William Quantrill. The Confederate government disowned William Quantrill, but not the Sons of the Confederacy.

http://quantrill1814.ksscv.org/

There is even a Quantrill Society. Check out the black flag of "no quarter".

http://www.geocities.com/quantrillsoc/

In Missouri, there used to be a Sons of Confederate Veterans "camp" honoring the name of "Bloody Bill Anderson". His sister, among a group of Missouri women, were killed (murdered, according to Neo-Confederates) during the collapse of the unsafe building they were being held in. Confederate supporters see this place as hallowed ground. This tragic event is used to justify the slaughter in Lawrence, Kansas, of over a hundred unarmed men and boys in 1863. Among his other depradations, "Bloody Bill" and his gang removed a group of unarmed Union soldiers on furlough from a train in Centralia, Missouri. These unarmed soldiers were then systematically shot in the head.

In Andersonville, GA, there is a stone monument erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy to the memory and honor of Captain Henry Wirz, Commander of Andersonville prison camp. I don't believe there is another place on earth where the Commandant of a concentration camp has a monument to his memory. Only in the former Confederacy.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

In Kansas, the Sons of Confederate Veterans have a "camp" dedicated to William Quantrill. The Confederate government disowned William Quantrill, but not the Sons of the Confederacy.

http://quantrill1814.ksscv.org/

There is even a Quantrill Society. Check out the black flag of "no quarter".

http://www.geocities.com/quantrillsoc/

In Missouri, there used to be a Sons of Confederate Veterans "camp" honoring the name of "Bloody Bill Anderson". His sister, among a group of Missouri women, were killed (murdered, according to Neo-Confederates) during the collapse of the unsafe building they were being held in. Confederate supporters see this place as hallowed ground. This tragic event is used to justify the slaughter in Lawrence, Kansas, of over a hundred unarmed men and boys in 1863. Among his other depradations, "Bloody Bill" and his gang removed a group of unarmed Union soldiers on furlough from a train in Centralia, Missouri. These unarmed soldiers were then systematically shot in the head.

In Andersonville, GA, there is a stone monument erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy to the memory and honor of Captain Henry Wirz, Commander of Andersonville prison camp. I don't believe there is another place on earth where the Commandant of a concentration camp has a monument to his memory. Only in the former Confederacy.

Hey man, while I generally have been in agreement with your posts, and even this one...I wouldn't compare Wirtz to Anderson or Qauntril.

While Wirtz may not deserve any awards for his management/lack there of at Andersonville, he's in no means comparable to those other guys. I think if you compare the management of the camp to other contemporary camps (North & South), you'll find that there alot of camps that operated similarly.

That monument was placed by the UDC, there in honor of Wirtz, not an honor of his actions, but in his memory of getting hung out to dry on the issue of the camp (as the some Federal Politicians saw it as a way to take the heat off of their own camps up North).

Not saying he was an angel, but please, please, please do not compare him to these other individuals.

[8th TexCav]

In Kansas, the Sons of Confederate Veterans have a "camp" dedicated to William Quantrill. The Confederate government disowned William Quantrill, but not the Sons of the Confederacy.

http://quantrill1814.ksscv.org/

There is even a Quantrill Society. Check out the black flag of "no quarter".

http://www.geocities.com/quantrillsoc/

In Missouri, there used to be a Sons of Confederate Veterans "camp" honoring the name of "Bloody Bill Anderson". His sister, among a group of Missouri women, were killed (murdered, according to Neo-Confederates) during the collapse of the unsafe building they were being held in. Confederate supporters see this place as hallowed ground. This tragic event is used to justify the slaughter in Lawrence, Kansas, of over a hundred unarmed men and boys in 1863. Among his other depradations, "Bloody Bill" and his gang removed a group of unarmed Union soldiers on furlough from a train in Centralia, Missouri. These unarmed soldiers were then systematically shot in the head.

In Andersonville, GA, there is a stone monument erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy to the memory and honor of Captain Henry Wirz, Commander of Andersonville prison camp. I don't believe there is another place on earth where the Commandant of a concentration camp has a monument to his memory. Only in the former Confederacy.


Mr Jay,

I believe that you have stepped over the line and will call you on this as I did earlier with Mr Curtis. Are there members of the SCV or any heritage organization that do not accept the facts of history? Of course. Please do not lump all together.

Your choice of words in reference to Andersonville and Captain Wirz are not only historically wrong but intentionally offensive. Is your intent to equate it with Nazi Germany? If so, your were successful. If you would like to have a civilized discussion regarding the deplorable conditions of the prison camps, North and South and the reasons for it, open a thread. I am sure that members here would like to discuss it. If instead you would just like to insult people of the "former Confederacy," I will stay out of the discussion.

Once again, I do not think this was the intent of the thread. Perhaps I am wrong.

[Southern Cal]

I have no intention of offending anyone. Sorry if any offense given, certainly none intended. For the record, I think the real culprit for the mess up leading to the Andersonville disgrace was Gen. Winder. But he had died before the war was over and Capt. Wirz was the next in line for scrutiny as the camp commander. Was he scapegoated? Possibly? Scapegoated so Federals could cover up union prison camps? A conspiracy like that needs to be proven. It seems correct that the subject would be more productive on a different thread. I've strayed from the intent of this thread. Secession versus insurrection is a more civil topic.

[TexConfederate]

As William Sherman said it best: "War is ****".
The Germans made a bad decision. Surely you don't expect me as a Texan, and the descendant of two gallant Confederate soldiers from this state, to approve of their actions?

[TexConfederate]

Mr Curtis,

Not only this group of Germans, but many unarmed Germans settlers throughout the state were "dealt with." The murders that occurred at the hands of "real Texans" are an atrocity and an embarrassment to this great state that should not be forgotten. As a Texan, I find your attitude deeply offensive and disturbing.

This thread has given us an opportunity to discuss the opposing viewpoints on secession and insurrection as it pertained to the mid 19th century. I do not think this is the place to condone murder nor to state 21st century secession is not only and option but likely. Of course, I could be wrong.

Mr. Smithson,

I think you are reading way to much in my posts.
I do not condone murder. The Germans were attempting to betray their country (at that time). I said earlier, if you would read it carefully, that the killing of prisioners was an atrocity. It is a common misconception that in this state, that Germans all were Pro-Union. That is not so. The majority served the Confederacy with honor. The "Comfort" Germans chose not to do so.
If it offends you that I have little sympathy for them, then I apologize, but I cannot sympathize when 60,000 Texans were loyal to their state, and to the Confederacy.

As to secession, I in NO WAY condone it, but simply stated that I believe it is a right. Please make sure you know my meaning before you imply otherwise. A private post would have been more appropriate to question my beliefs.

[TexConfederate]

As I stated earlier, we are in agreement regarding the barbaric way the prisoners were treated.

[TexConfederate]

By your above standard, then every man who served in the Confederacy deserved to be shot, as a traitor to the United States, including those wounded and, I'd assume, any who are captured as well. Since I am from the United States, and live in the United States, I believe that sanctifies my position on this issue.

Your argument seems to be running from the sublime into the ridiculous: If a deed was done in the name of the Confederacy, all is acceptable. I don't think I'll be buying into that line of thought.


Well, your argument certainly has merit, if I believed that the secession of the Confederate States was illegal. I don't, therefore Confederates weren't traitors, and that argument was settled after the war, when the attempt was made to try Jeff Davis for treason. It wasn't done, because the argument would have been LOST in a court of law.

And I certainly do not justify every act committed by the Confederacy. You are over-generalizing in the extreme.

[Southern Cal]

"Well, your argument certainly has merit, if I believed that the secession of the Confederate States was illegal".

If the argument is valid that secession of a state was indeed legal under the Constitution,

and if a state, before seceding and while still part of the Union, seized Federal property with armed state militia,

doesn't it follow that this case of secession, effected after overt acts of seizing Federal miltary installations, now constitute "armed disunion" and render that vote of secession illegal and void, since Federal crimes were committed before secession??

In effect, once a state seceded, Federal officers would have had no authority to prosecute anyone. State officials certainly wouldn't bring charges against themselves. Doesn't that place the original seven states that seceded from the Union after seizing Federal property, in the position of "having one's cake and eating it too"?

By the way, Genghis Khan exhibited more style when he had traitors "dealt with". Genghis Khan often had traitors rolled up in a rug with a squadron of cavalry riding over afterwards, trampling the traitor to death. Of course, this type of execution followed a Mongol legal proceeding.

[TexConfederate]

[QUOTE=TexConfederate]"Well, your argument certainly has merit, if I believed that the secession of the Confederate States was illegal".

If the argument is valid that secession of a state was indeed legal under the Constitution,

and if a state, before seceding and while still part of the Union, seized Federal property with armed state militia,

doesn't it follow that this case of secession, effected after overt acts of seizing Federal miltary installations, now constitute "armed disunion" and render that vote of secession illegal and void, since Federal crimes were committed before secession??

In effect, once a state seceded, Federal officers would have had no authority to prosecute anyone. State officials certainly wouldn't bring charges against themselves. Doesn't that place the original seven states that seceded from the Union after seizing Federal property, in the position of "having one's cake and eating it too"?

By the way, Genghis Khan exhibited more style when he had traitors "dealt with". Genghis Khan often had traitors rolled up in a rug with a squadron of cavalry riding over afterwards, trampling the traitor to death. Of course, this type of execution followed a Mongol legal proceeding.

That is an interesting question for sure, but ALL the states didn't seize property before secession. Then there is the problem of those that did between the vote of their Secession Conventions and the public votes......

I am not sure that those acts would void secession.....
Genghis Khan certainly was original :) but....I am not convinced that the legal proceedings made it any better.

Speaking of disgraceful acts, read about the "Great Gainesville, TX hangings, which ALSO took place during the war. 30 suspected Union men, NO proof, just suspicion, were hung after a "formal trial" of sorts. In my mind, this was even worse than the "Comfort" incident, because they had committed no acts of treason, etc.........

[8th TexCav]

[QUOTE=Southern Cal]

That is an interesting question for sure, but ALL the states didn't seize property before secession. Then there is the problem of those that did between the vote of their Secession Conventions and the public votes......

I am not sure that those acts would void secession.....
Genghis Khan certainly was original :) but....I am not convinced that the legal proceedings made it any better.

Speaking of disgraceful acts, read about the "Great Gainesville, TX hangings, which ALSO took place during the war. 30 suspected Union men, NO proof, just suspicion, were hung after a "formal trial" of sorts. In my mind, this was even worse than the "Comfort" incident, because they had committed no acts of treason, etc.........

Mr Curtis,

The above mentioned incident as well as many others throughout the state were the things I was referring to when I said that “many Germans settlers” were murdered at the hands of Texans during the war. This hysterical anti-German sentiment was quite common at the time. It was driven by the fact the most of those settlers were non-slave holding, foreign language speaking and pro-Union. I never said that Germans did not serve.

Your statement “As far as I am concerned, they were traitors to their state, and were disposed of with more kindness than they deserved.” as well as your following posts made your feelings quite clear. Yes, I did read all of them and I do not think it changes the viewpoint.

In regards to 21st century secession, I did read too much into it and I apologize.

[8th TexCav]

I have no intention of offending anyone. Sorry if any offense given, certainly none intended. For the record, I think the real culprit for the mess up leading to the Andersonville disgrace was Gen. Winder. But he had died before the war was over and Capt. Wirz was the next in line for scrutiny as the camp commander. Was he scapegoated? Possibly? Scapegoated so Federals could cover up union prison camps? A conspiracy like that needs to be proven. It seems correct that the subject would be more productive on a different thread. I've strayed from the intent of this thread. Secession versus insurrection is a more civil topic.

Mr Jay,

Your posts are usually anything but offensive which is why I was surprised by your statements. Thank you for your apology.

[TexConfederate]

[QUOTE=TexConfederate]

Mr Curtis,

The above mentioned incident as well as many others throughout the state were the things I was referring to when I said that “many Germans settlers” were murdered at the hands of Texans during the war. This hysterical anti-German sentiment was quite common at the time. It was driven by the fact the most of those settlers were non-slave holding, foreign language speaking and pro-Union. I never said that Germans did not serve.

Your statement “As far as I am concerned, they were traitors to their state, and were disposed of with more kindness than they deserved.” as well as your following posts made your feelings quite clear. Yes, I did read all of them and I do not think it changes the viewpoint.

In regards to 21st century secession, I did read too much into it and I apologize.
Apology accepted, friend.
I don't want you to think that I have anti-german sentiment, because I don't.
I have relatives in Comal County, of German descent. And I apologize for my bombastic statements, if they have offended you, that wasn't my intention.

By the way, I will tell you a funny story: I have a friend who was editor of the New Braunfels Herald-Zietung newspaper. He said that the printing press has been under water twice in it's history. Once was in 2000, during the bad floods in the Hill Country. The first time was in 1860, when the Pro-Union Germans of the town threw the press into the Comal River, when the editor wrote an anti-Lincoln article...LOL :)

[TexConfederate]

Gentleman:

I would like to offer an apology to you all.
In my zeal to defend the honor of the Confederacy, and the pro-secession position, I feel I have overstepped myself, and I would like to clarify my position, and also apologize for being overzealous and bombastic.

I in no way condone atrocities done by either side during the WBTS, even though I can see that it may seem that way. Furthermore, regardless of the differences between North & South, we are once again united, and I truly strive as a reenactor to honor both sides of that struggle.

Agaiin, I apologize for my shortcomings.....


Regards,:oops:

[tompritchett]

I would like to offer an apology to you all.
In my zeal to defend the honor of the Confederacy, and the pro-secession position, I feel I have overstepped myself, and I would like to clarify my position, and also apologize for being overzealous and bombastic.

I in no way condone atrocities done by either side during the WBTS, even though I can see that it may seem that way. Furthermore, regardless of the differences between North & South, we are once again united, and I truly strive as a reenactor to honor both sides of that struggle.

Agaiin, I apologize for my shortcomings.....

I am sure that the other readers of this thread appreciate your apology and clarification. It takes both courage and character to make such a public statement.

[TexConfederate]

dont forget that the move from moultrie to sumter could also be seen as a hostile or terroristic act. they destroyed some property and then occupied another. without orders no mind you. this could also be seen as jumping the gun so to speak by the north.
Actually, Anderson had carte blanche orders from Secretary of War, John Floyd to move his men to any fort in the area, if he felt his command was threatened. The sand dunes were higher than the walls of Ft. Moultrie, meaning that the garrison would have been at the mercy of infillade fire.

Also, the Charleston Grays made a show of drilling everyday outside his walls.....

[tompritchett]

Actually, Anderson had carte blanche orders from Secretary of War,

I would not necessarily say that he had carte blanche orders per se. A more precise description would be that under Buchanan he had very vague orders with little direction from Washington in what was an extremely delicate situation that had major implications on negotiations between Washington and South Carolina.

[jthlmnn]

To put it more bluntly than Mr. Pritchett, in addition to locating in a more secure position, Anderson was also attempting to defuse the situation by getting his troops out of immediate proximity of the populace. Nervous soldiers and angry civilians are a very volatile mix. (Sorry, leaving entirely may have made the locals happy, but it was not an option available to him.) As I recall, state officials had to pressure Jefferson Davis into issuing the order for the opening salvos. Not that he had a problem with firing on the fort, more that he believed/desired that they do it on their own authority. (ACW Trivia: Davis & Anderson had been stationed together at what fort in the antebellum years?)

[TexConfederate]

I would not necessarily say that he had carte blanche orders per se. A more precise description would be that under Buchanan he had very vague orders with little direction from Washington in what was an extremely delicate situation that had major implications on negotiations between Washington and South Carolina.

His exact orders to Anderson read as follows:
"You are carefully to avoid any action which would needlessly provoke agression; and for that reason, you are not without emminent and imminent nescessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude, but you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and if attacked, you are to defend yourself to the last extremity.The smallness of your force will not permit you to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack or attempt to gain possession of any one of them ;will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them, which you deem proper to increase your power of resistance. You are authorised to take similar steps whenever you have tangible evidenceof a design to proceed to a hostile act."

[Southern Cal]

Exactly! And Secretary of War Floyd wasn't around as he had resigned under a cloud of alleged corruption on or about the same day that South Carolina seceded. Major Anderson wanted to avoid any confrontation that could lead to bloodshed and possibly start a war. To that end he removed his command to Fort Sumter. That this move caused such heated accusations of treachery against President Buchanan from southern movers and shakers, no doubt pained Major Anderson greatly. Anderson was a Kentuckyan, a former slave owner, and his wife and in-laws were southerners. Was not one of his brothers an officer of the CSA? The unintended consequence of Anderson's trying to avoid armed conflict was that it seemed only to bring conflict closer. An aside: the only death at Fort Sumter occurred after the Federal garrison sought terms. A 21-gun salute was fired by the garrison before evacuating Fort Sumter and one of the gunners was killed from a concussion when one of the cannons discharged prematurely.

[mike yeager]

I believe in states rights , and My rights , if a blue belly, or any body intrudes on my land, and will not leave, I have the right to un-limber, my field piece;and instuct the transgresser. Also, I had relatives since departed on both sides, and a ancestor that died in the revolution for old glory. I do not believe in slavery, but would have fought for the south, and states rights, even thought there where, a few in-ept, people in positions of power, also if, Stonewall had not been, elevated to Heavon by his Lord for the Lords own reasons, I believe the South would have surly prevaled. The conversations of this and that, vex me, so I apologize, to the readers that injoy the actions of this and that, for in the end I believe, all comes down to blood and thunder, and the bravery of the men who fought, and left this earthly plane, that we get to savor for a few brief years also.

[Southern Cal]

Reading the Census of 1860, the North had 4-5 times as many men liable for service in the militia than did the south. "Stonewall" or no "Stonewall", it still takes warm bodies to fill uniforms and food to keep those warm bodies in uniform instead of going home. The south was running out of warm bodies when it surrendered and the southern economy was in shambles. The North had the largest standing army in the world by April 1865 and the northern economy actually improved over the period of the War Between the States. If "Stonewall" had been around, and if he had perchance won the south a few more battles, the war might have been prolonged. But the north would have simply fielded even more troops and built even more ships to maintain the blockade with the end result being the same, just more bloodshed. The Confederate leaders made their roll on the dice with long odds. It is to the credit of the soldiers and officers of the Confederacy for sticking to the colors for as long as they did after southern politicians and officials placed them in the field and subsequently served them most ineffectively.

[TexConfederate]

Reading the Census of 1860, the North had 4-5 times as many men liable for service in the militia than did the south. "Stonewall" or no "Stonewall", it still takes warm bodies to fill uniforms and food to keep those warm bodies in uniform instead of going home. The south was running out of warm bodies when it surrendered and the southern economy was in shambles. The North had the largest standing army in the world by April 1865 and the northern economy actually improved over the period of the War Between the States. If "Stonewall" had been around, and if he had perchance won the south a few more battles, the war might have been prolonged. But the north would have simply fielded even more troops and built even more ships to maintain the blockade with the end result being the same, just more bloodshed. The Confederate leaders made their roll on the dice with long odds. It is to the credit of the soldiers and officers of the Confederacy for sticking to the colors for as long as they did after southern politicians and officials placed them in the field and subsequently served them most ineffectively.



I respectfully disagree. The North was ready to cave in, about the time of the Battle of Gettysburg. IF Stonewall Jackson had been alive, I don't believe that the errors made there would have occured. An example of that would be, Ewells failure to take the "high ground", etc. Jackson would have not made such a mistake, and IF victory had taken place, I can envision a couple of scenarios:

1. The North would have sued for peace at that point.
2. England OR France would have provided assistance, and help to break the blockade.

I think victory could have been a reality.

[tompritchett]

His exact orders to Anderson read as follows:
"You are carefully to avoid any action which would needlessly provoke agression; and for that reason, you are not without emminent and imminent nescessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude, but you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and if attacked, you are to defend yourself to the last extremity.The smallness of your force will not permit you to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack or attempt to gain possession of any one of them ;will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them, which you deem proper to increase your power of resistance. You are authorised to take similar steps whenever you have tangible evidenceof a design to proceed to a hostile act."

However these orders also do not inform him that the South Carolina delegation had specifically told President Buchanan that South Carolina would consider the occupation of Ft. Sumter to be an escalation of the affair by the Federal government. That was the type of information that Anderson needed to know but did not receive.

[tompritchett]

1. The North would have sued for peace at that point.
2. England OR France would have provided assistance, and help to break the blockade.

I do not think that the North would have necessarily sued for peace (to me that is analogous to asking for terms) but would have just withdrawn her armies from Southern territories and declared an end of the war. The negotiations would then come in establishing trade agreements with the South, particularly in terms of access to the Mississippi River and the port of New Orleans.

[8th TexCav]

Gentlemen,

This is off topic but I would like to respond anyway.

It was 1863. Gettysburg did not matter one way or the other. Vicksburg fell. The Confederacy was severed in two. The United Kingdom would not support the Confederacy due to slavery. France might have in exchange for her on self-interest in Mexico.

The only way the South could win was by breaking the will of the Northern voters and having the Lincoln administration voted out. 1863 was not that year. In 1864 that almost happened. It was not until the fall of Atlanta that Lincoln's reelection seemed probable.

There was only ever one man who could guarantee Southern independence and he was not a general or even a member of the Confederacy; His name is Abraham Lincoln. As long as he remained in office the South could not hope to match the overall power of the North.

Sorry if the offends any of my brother Southerners.

[jthlmnn]

To build on Barry's points:

New Orleans, the largest port in the south, was already in Federal hands. The fall of Vicksburg cut the Confederacy in half, leaving the Eastern half completely surrounded. It also provided the Federals with an excellent network of supply lines. A defeat at G'burg would, no doubt, have caused some excitement in D.C., but not a cave-in. Maybe Sam Grant would have been called over sooner, maybe someone else would have risen to the occasion. Regardless, with Vicksburg it became a matter of time and numbers. Lincoln had only to find someone who could do the math.

With respect,

[tompritchett]

It was 1863. Gettysburg did not matter one way or the other. Vicksburg fell. The Confederacy was severed in two. The United Kingdom would not support the Confederacy due to slavery. France might have in exchange for her on self-interest in Mexico.

The only way the South could win was by breaking the will of the Northern voters and having the Lincoln administration voted out. 1863 was not that year. In 1864 that almost happened. It was not until the fall of Atlanta that Lincoln's reelection seemed probable.

There was only ever one man who could guarantee Southern independence and he was not a general or even a member of the Confederacy; His name is Abraham Lincoln. As long as he remained in office the South could not hope to match the overall power of the North.

I respectively disagree. In 1863, some of the Northern governors were getting tired of the war, its seemingly endless casualties and its apparent little progress. Thus they were supposedly considering pulling their troops out of the war. Had the Confederates been able to rout Meade at Gettysburg or had decided to capture Harrisburg instead of falling back initially towards Cashtown, there is a real possibility that PA would have pulled her support from the war, followed by a chain of reaction of other discontented Northern states - all of which would of deprived Lincoln of the troops he needed to force the Confederate states back into the Union. In essence, during Lee's Gettysburg campaign it was the governor of PA who had the real power to determine whether the war would continue past the summer rather than Lincoln. Also at this point, since most such ceasing of hostilities involve the return to pre-war borders by both parties, both the Federal occupation of New Orleans and capture of Vicksburg would become meaningless as both would likely have been returned back to Confederate hands as a term of the resulting peace treaty.

As far Great Britain, there was even a greater factor against her recognizing the Confederacy in 1863. It is my understanding that in 1863 Britain's population first reached the size that it became necessary for her to start importing food for her people. While the South could export cotton, a commodity that Britain could get from her colonies in Egypt and India, the North had a surplus of wheat to export.

[8th TexCav]

I respectively disagree. In 1863, some of the Northern governors were getting tired of the war, its seemingly endless casualties and its apparent little progress. Thus they were supposedly considering pulling their troops out of the war. Had the Confederates been able to rout Meade at Gettysburg or had decided to capture Harrisburg instead of falling back initially towards Cashtown, there is a real possibility that PA would have pulled her support from the war, followed by a chain of reaction of other discontented Northern states - all of which would of deprived Lincoln of the troops he needed to force the Confederate states back into the Union. In essence, during Lee's Gettysburg campaign it was the governor of PA who had the real power to determine whether the war would continue past the summer rather than Lincoln. Also at this point, since most such ceasing of hostilities involve the return to pre-war borders by both parties, both the Federal occupation of New Orleans and capture of Vicksburg would become meaningless as both would likely have been returned back to Confederate hands as a term of the resulting peace treaty.


Tom,

And now we come full circle! Those regiments were under the control of the federal government! The state governors had limited power once the regiments were sworn into federal service. One of those powers is not the right to pull them out. So, is the option of the governor of Pennsylvania to secede? Hmmm....just curious.

[jthlmnn]

I respectively disagree. In 1863, some of the Northern governors were getting tired of the war, its seemingly endless casualties and its apparent little progress. Thus they were supposedly considering pulling their troops out of the war. Had the Confederates been able to rout Meade at Gettysburg or had decided to capture Harrisburg instead of falling back initially towards Cashtown, there is a real possibility that PA would have pulled her support from the war, followed by a chain of reaction of other discontented Northern states

IMHO, this would have been wishful thinking. The troops in the field, who were suffering the caualties, were lobbying the folks back home hard and heavy: letters to local papers and more. They knew they could fight and, with decent
leadership, defeat the Confederates. These were men with commitment to see the job through. (This doesn't even count the units that had yet to see any action at all.)

[Pvt Schnapps]

IMHO, this would have been wishful thinking. The troops in the field, who were suffering the caualties, were lobbying the folks back home hard and heavy: letters to local papers and more. They knew they could fight and, with decent
leadership, defeat the Confederates. These were men with commitment to see the job through. (This doesn't even count the units that had yet to see any action at all.)

Extremely wishful thinking, both on the rout and the pull out. I'm unaware of any source that would support this.

[mike yeager]

Reading the Census of 1860, the North had 4-5 times as many men liable for service in the militia than did the south. "Stonewall" or no "Stonewall", it still takes warm bodies to fill uniforms and food to keep those warm bodies in uniform instead of going home. The south was running out of warm bodies when it surrendered and the southern economy was in shambles. The North had the largest standing army in the world by April 1865 and the northern economy actually improved over the period of the War Between the States. If "Stonewall" had been around, and if he had perchance won the south a few more battles, the war might have been prolonged. But the north would have simply fielded even more troops and built even more ships to maintain the blockade with the end result being the same, just more bloodshed. The Confederate leaders made their roll on the dice with long odds. It is to the credit of the soldiers and officers of the Confederacy for sticking to the colors for as long as they did after southern politicians and officials placed them in the field and subsequently served them most ineffectively.
you have merit in some statements, the south needed to feed her troops, better than she did in the last stages of the war, I beleave Lee's plan was sound at Gettysburg, if his leaders would have pulled it off, instead of the mistakes that where made. I think God allowed Stonewalls death prior to this battle so the south would lose this battle, since there was a grander scheme of things, for the future, of the U>S>A and its people, Gettysburg is a mighty sacred place, I believe the battle was a major incident in the war, with the almighty taking a hand in the outcome. I also think the sins, of owning slaves, played a hand, with the almighty, siding with the North, the south should have freed the slaves then went to war, so I'm a fatalistic confederate.

[TexConfederate]

No offense taken on my part, Barry. However I have to disagree :)

[Southern Cal]

I respectfully disagree. The North was ready to cave in, about the time of the Battle of Gettysburg. IF Stonewall Jackson had been alive, I don't believe that the errors made there would have occured. An example of that would be, Ewells failure to take the "high ground", etc. Jackson would have not made such a mistake, and IF victory had taken place, I can envision a couple of scenarios:

1. The North would have sued for peace at that point.
2. England OR France would have provided assistance, and help to break the blockade.

I think victory could have been a reality.

With respect, either Gladstone or Lord Palmerston, whichever was Prime Minister during the Civil War, has read "Uncle Tom's Cabin" twice, and was very moved by it. Queen Victoria read the book as well, I believe, and though she had no official standing in policy matters, she did have a great deal of moral authority to bring to Parliament and to the Prime Minister. The Prime minister was not going to support recognition of the Confederacy by 1863. Then there was the southern "embargo" of several months, on exports of cotton, to more or less coerce the British to recognize the Confederacy. The British went and bought their cotton elsewhere and all that southern cotton sat on the docks of southern harbors when it could have been sold to support the Army. And then there was the Emancipation proclamation that had the effect of putting foreign powers on notice that supporting the south also meant supporting slavery. The British Parliament would not have recognized the Confedracy after these events. The French were never really interested in recognizing the Confederacy since they would have had a new foreign power on their Mexican border to contest French interference in Mexico. Well before Gettysburg, there was no longer any serious sentiment for foreign intervention in favor of the Confederacy.

What would have happened if Stonewall Jackson had been present at Gettysburg is irrelevant, since he was dead. Even if he had been present, and even if he had succeeded in forcing the Yankees from the field that evening, General Meade certainly wasn't ready to "cave in". He had a plan "B" for troops already marching to Gettysburg, to instead intrench at (Pipes Creek?) on much better defensive ground than Gettysburg. Anyway, the scenario is one of the big "what ifs" Besides, Gen. Grant wasn't caving in either and Vicksburg was a day or so from surrendering, adding icing to the cake of Gettysburg, and in retrospect, was more important strategically than Getysburg.

There is a better argument for the south to have "won". That is, if Gen. McClellan was elected in 1864, he might have opened negotiations with the Confederacy, the north being tired of war. However, with Atlanta already in Union hands, and Richmond more or lee surrounded and the ANV mostly pinned down, this scenario is not so likely after all. General Lee even warned that once a maneuver war was no longer possible, if the ANV became immobile, that it was only a matter of time before Richmond fell. Lee also estimated that about 100 ANV soldiers were deserting every day during the winter period of early 1865.

[sbl]

"I think God allowed Stonewalls death prior to this battle..."

Mike,

Stuff happens.

[Southern Cal]

For those who don't have this site already bookmarked, here is a good place to start an investigation of first hand sources about the Civil War, as well as many other interesting pieces of information.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/warweb.html#crisis

I've spent a good deal of time in the section that deals with the period leading up to the war. It is very interesting to see with the varnish off, exactly what the movers and shakers of the north and south wrote or said before secession. There were certainly a harsher words exchanged than we see on this forum. We've become somewhat kinder, gentler, partisans of the Union or Secession causes.

[flattop32355]

There was only ever one man who could guarantee Southern independence and he was not a general or even a member of the Confederacy; His name is Abraham Lincoln. As long as he remained in office the South could not hope to match the overall power of the North.

Having done some reading on the subject, Mr. Lincoln's view seems to have been that he would continue the war until either the South was brought back into the Union or he was relieved of duty by losing the 1864 election.

Had the ANV won at Gettysburg, there would have converged upon it the combined effort of every available Union force with all speed. Lee, knowing that he could not sustain his army in hostile territory indefinitely, would eventually have to withdraw. Occupying Baltimore or Philadelphia could well have seen his army trapped far from home without supply and subject to both land and naval attack. At best, he could have driven for Washington and captured it for a time before returning to Virginia.

Similarly, it is quite possible Grant would have been called east sooner following Vicksburg to replace the defeated Meade. Sherman was more than able at the time to take over the western Federal army, while Rosecrans continued his assault on Bragg in Tennessee. It is entirely possible that Lee would then have not been asked to send Longstreet to aid Bragg, and no Southern victory in that campaign would have occurred.

At best, the war would have been dragged out an additional year or two. I doubt McClellan could have beaten Lincoln in the 1864 election even under the above circumstances, though the margin of victory may well have been much closer. Victories by the western Union armies would have continued unabated before the election.

[TexConfederate]

Having done some reading on the subject, Mr. Lincoln's view seems to have been that he would continue the war until either the South was brought back into the Union or he was relieved of duty by losing the 1864 election.

Had the ANV won at Gettysburg, there would have converged upon it the combined effort of every available Union force with all speed. Lee, knowing that he could not sustain his army in hostile territory indefinitely, would eventually have to withdraw. Occupying Baltimore or Philadelphia could well have seen his army trapped far from home without supply and subject to both land and naval attack. At best, he could have driven for Washington and captured it for a time before returning to Virginia.

Similarly, it is quite possible Grant would have been called east sooner following Vicksburg to replace the defeated Meade. Sherman was more than able at the time to take over the western Federal army, while Rosecrans continued his assault on Bragg in Tennessee. It is entirely possible that Lee would then have not been asked to send Longstreet to aid Bragg, and no Southern victory in that campaign would have occurred.

At best, the war would have been dragged out an additional year or two. I doubt McClellan could have beaten Lincoln in the 1864 election even under the above circumstances, though the margin of victory may well have been much closer. Victories by the western Union armies would have continued unabated before the election.

If Lee had captured Washington, the war would have effectively ended. There is no doubt that a victory in that manner would have ended support for the war in the North.

[flattop32355]

If Lee had captured Washington, the war would have effectively ended. There is no doubt that a victory in that manner would have ended support for the war in the North.

I'm not so sure about that. Unless the ANV could prove that it could hold the town, rather than just pass through it, it might have just stirred up more reason to finish the job.

You could be correct. I'm just not convinced of it.

[sbl]

"If Lee had captured Washington, the war would have effectively ended. There is no doubt that a victory in that manner would have ended support for the war in the North."

That's what Napoleon thought about Moscow. The US has Boston, Philadelphia, and New York city, all with sea ports Old cities compared to DC. LOT's of loyal Union troops from around those cities too that may not FEEL defeated.

[Malingerer]

And, if I could piggyback on to Scott's post - The British captured New York, Philadelphia, Savannah, Charleston, and Wilmington during the Revolution and it certainly did not break the back of the rebellion despite what the British high command had predicted.

[sbl]

Not to mention burning Washington during the War Of 1812. Say Tex, didn't Santa Anna chase you "Texians" all the way to Louisiana and THEN you whipped him?

[jthlmnn]

And, if I could piggyback on to Scott's post - The British captured New York, Philadelphia, Savannah, Charleston, and Wilmington during the Revolution and it certainly did not break the back of the rebellion despite what the British high command had predicted.

The British also sacked D.C. during the War of 1812 and it did not result in capitulation.

This all assumes that Lee would have been able to get into the town in the first place. Assaulting entrenched, fortified positions was what he usually tried to get the Federals to do, because it maximized the casualties of the attacker while minimizing those of the defender. I do not believe that the Confederacy could have mustered the men and materiel to pull it off before Lee got jammed between Washington's fortifications and the Army of the Potomac. He could well have ended up with his line of retreat cut off and his army surrounded.

Another entry in the game of "What if...?"

[tompritchett]

If Lee had captured Washington, the war would have effectively ended. There is no doubt that a victory in that manner would have ended support for the war in the North.

I doubt that Lee would have taken his main army much further east than Harrisburg. However, that would not preclude his sending a major portion of Jeb Stuart's cavalry on a raid to harass Philadelphia and spread major panic in Eastern PA. Rather Lee could have thoroughly destroyed the rails coming in and out of Harrisburg putting a major crimp on the supply of coal to the Navy blockading Southern ports. However, the main goal of such a raid would have been more psychological than military gains with the idea of further reinforcing the reluctance of Northern governors to continue to support the war against the South. Whether it would have been successful is a whole different story.

[8th TexCav]

I doubt that Lee would have taken his main army much further east than Harrisburg. However, that would not preclude his sending a major portion of Jeb Stuart's cavalry on a raid to harass Philadelphia and spread major panic in Eastern PA. Rather Lee could have thoroughly destroyed the rails coming in and out of Harrisburg putting a major crimp on the supply of coal to the Navy blockading Southern ports. However, the main goal of such a raid would have been more psychological than military gains with the idea of further reinforcing the reluctance of Northern governors to continue to support the war against the South. Whether it would have been successful is a whole different story.

Mr Pritchett,

Even Harrisburg would have been a large scale raid. General Lee would not have been able to hold the city. His command would have been completely isolated from its line of supply and its ability to forage would have been seriously reduced. That was his justification for concentration and battle at Gettysburg.

Any damage done to the railroads in Harrisburg would have no impact on the blockades. General Haupt’s command could quickly repair the damage done once Lee’s army retreated. In the mean time trains could be routed through Erie. Longer, yes but still no long term impact at all.

I do not see a raid on Philadelphia by Stuart’s cavalry as an option. Most of his troopers and horses were worn out from having to fight their way into Gettysburg from their raid through Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. They had to immediately go into battle to support Lee. To turn around and make a 150 mile one-way raid into Philadelphia at that point is asking a lot from the horses and men.

That does not take into account the Union cavalry that was available to block or harass the raiders. Only one Union cavalry division, Bufford’s, was heavily engaged during the battle. There was also very little in the way of the element of surprise this time that Stuart could count on. The communities had already started burning the bridges over the Susquehanna River to stop Early’s advance. Had Lee or Stuart not been stopped in Gettysburg or Harrisburg, more would have been burned. Fords could be found but it would have slowed the advance.

Looking at the odds, I do not see this as plausible.

[TexConfederate]

Not to mention burning Washington during the War Of 1812. Say Tex, didn't Santa Anna chase you "Texians" all the way to Louisiana and THEN you whipped him?
No....the Texian Army retreated as far as San Jacinto, (East of Houston, TX)
and the Texians trapped him on a piece of land surrounded by water & swamps, and DESTROYED his army.

[8th TexCav]

No....the Texian Army retreated as far as San Jacinto, (East of Houston, TX)
and the Texians trapped him on a piece of land surrounded by water & swamps, and DESTROYED his army.

As a matter of fact, that is the flag I always carry in the parades. I represent the SCV as a rider with the Texas Division Mounted Color Guard. We carry each flag that Texans have fought under from the beginning to today's war on terror. The San Jacinto flag happens to be my favorite as it represents the turning point in Texas history.

[sbl]

"....DESTROYED his army." THAT'S the spirit!!

"..all the way to Louisiana" Well...that was me stretching it.

[sbl]

The "San Jacinto Flag" is one of my favorites.

http://www.galleryoftherepublic.com/images/txflags/sanjacinto_fr.jpg

How do you Red Staters get along with the exposed lady libery on the flag? :)

[8th TexCav]

The "San Jacinto Flag" is one of my favorites.

http://www.galleryoftherepublic.com/images/txflags/sanjacinto_fr.jpg

How do you Red Staters get along with the exposed lady libery on the flag? :)

Scott, now you know why I carry that flag!

I can't speak for the other Red States, but we Texans have an appreciation for the finer "attributes" of Lady Liberty. Have you ever seen Texas women? :cool: