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/sh...t=4010&page=23