Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Slavery's Impact on the Cotton States Secession

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    American87 said in post 74, "
    The Whiskey Rebels did not secede via their state legislature as the New England states considered doing in the War of 1812 and as the Southern states did in 1861. The North needed the South to remain in the Union, or their economy and political agenda would have fallen apart, which is why they went to war. Other reasons for war included the belief that the non-Unionized states would go to war with each other. It was a question of, "Is secession the smart thing to do," not, "Is secession legal." Secession wasn't declared illegal until
    Texas v. White
    (1869). We discussed this case in a thread (
    https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...nists-traitors
    ), and it may be wothwhile to reboot. Imo, Chief Justice Chase's opinion was a hatchet job, but like in all legal matters it's just my opinion. The North won and Salmon P. Chase was chief of the court; he led the others in their decision."

    No, simply no. It matters not how succession or insurrection are attempted it is the making of the attempt that matters. Whether or not a state legislature was involved is not relevant at all. Those states had every, repeat EVERY, opportunity to test secession via the legal system, yet made a conscious decision to not do so. They made that decision in spite of having a disproportionate amount of power in Congress which the Three-Fifths clause provided them. The same folks, slaves, that granted them legislative strength beyond their numbers were certainly not consulted at the secession conventions.

    Instead they committed rebellion against their own national government by seizing and in other cases stealing federal property to help them prepare for the military action that they knew their actions were guaranteed to cause. They opted for a resolution to the question by force and lost. The verdict, at the rebel's choosing, was rendered by force of arms, and they LOST.

    Parsing of words and the use of partial or misapplied quotes after the fact does not change the facts, much as some here would like that to be so.

    Regards,
    Dennis

    If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

    Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by D1J1 View Post
      American87 said in post 74, "
      The Whiskey Rebels did not secede via their state legislature as the New England states considered doing in the War of 1812 and as the Southern states did in 1861. The North needed the South to remain in the Union, or their economy and political agenda would have fallen apart, which is why they went to war. Other reasons for war included the belief that the non-Unionized states would go to war with each other. It was a question of, "Is secession the smart thing to do," not, "Is secession legal." Secession wasn't declared illegal until
      Texas v. White
      (1869). We discussed this case in a thread (
      https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...nists-traitors
      ), and it may be wothwhile to reboot. Imo, Chief Justice Chase's opinion was a hatchet job, but like in all legal matters it's just my opinion. The North won and Salmon P. Chase was chief of the court; he led the others in their decision."

      No, simply no. It matters not how succession or insurrection are attempted it is the making of the attempt that matters. Whether or not a state legislature was involved is not relevant at all. Those states had every, repeat EVERY, opportunity to test secession via the legal system, yet made a conscious decision to not do so. They made that decision in spite of having a disproportionate amount of power in Congress which the Three-Fifths clause provided them. The same folks, slaves, that granted them legislative strength beyond their numbers were certainly not consulted at the secession conventions.

      Instead they committed rebellion against their own national government by seizing and in other cases stealing federal property to help them prepare for the military action that they knew their actions were guaranteed to cause. They opted for a resolution to the question by force and lost. The verdict, at the rebel's choosing, was rendered by force of arms, and they LOST.

      Parsing of words and the use of partial or misapplied quotes after the fact does not change the facts, much as some here would like that to be so.

      Regards,
      Dennis

      Seceding via state legislatures was the proper legal and diplomatic move. The Constitution reserves to the states all powers not granted to the federal government; the fed has zero say over secession, which is thereby left to the states.

      Lincoln should have tested the legality of secession by bringing the Southern states to court. The onus was on him to prove his case, because the the constitution is clear. In fact, when Chase wrote his opinion in Texas v. White, he referred to the null and void Articles of Confederation instead of the constitution.
      "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

      "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by American87 View Post

        Seceding via state legislatures was the proper legal and diplomatic move. The Constitution reserves to the states all powers not granted to the federal government; the fed has zero say over secession, which is thereby left to the states.

        Lincoln should have tested the legality of secession by bringing the Southern states to court. The onus was on him to prove his case, because the the constitution is clear. In fact, when Chase wrote his opinion in Texas v. White, he referred to the null and void Articles of Confederation instead of the constitution.
        Hogwash again. If the rebels/CSA were so proper diplomatically, why were they not recognized by a single foreign country as is proper diplomatically for a real nation-state? No recognition equals no nation according to diplomatic precedent and international law. Absent recognition the CSA is nothing but a bastard state, or perhaps a misguided fantasy, real only to the deluded few that believed so.

        The seceding states were the ones responsible for not using the courts, and they alone. Their seizing and stealing federal property, exclusively military bases, equipment and the machines needed to produce same, created a situation that proved the fact that force must be used to meet the force employed by the rebels. The rebels alone dodged a legal decision by this act. They are at least pirates and thieves if not traitors.

        The leadership of the south only avoided that last charge through the largess of men like Lincoln. Rather than castigating him, they, and their current incarnations should be kissing his ass and the asses of those of like thought for saving their lives at the war's conclusion.

        Regards,
        Dennis
        If stupid was a criminal offense Sea Lion believers would be doing life.

        Shouting out to Half Pint for bringing back the big mugs!

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

          Hogwash again. If the rebels/CSA were so proper diplomatically, why were they not recognized by a single foreign country as is proper diplomatically for a real nation-state? No recognition equals no nation according to diplomatic precedent and international law. Absent recognition the CSA is nothing but a bastard state, or perhaps a misguided fantasy, real only to the deluded few that believed so.

          The seceding states were the ones responsible for not using the courts, and they alone. Their seizing and stealing federal property, exclusively military bases, equipment and the machines needed to produce same, created a situation that proved the fact that force must be used to meet the force employed by the rebels. The rebels alone dodged a legal decision by this act. They are at least pirates and thieves if not traitors.

          The leadership of the south only avoided that last charge through the largess of men like Lincoln. Rather than castigating him, they, and their current incarnations should be kissing his ass and the asses of those of like thought for saving their lives at the war's conclusion.

          Regards,
          Dennis
          Foreign recognition is not required for state sovereignty. This is called the "Declarative Theory;" for example, if a bunch of people lived on the moon and recognized no allegiance to an Earthly power, they would still be sovereigns even if no Earth country recognized them as such; they are living and governing themselves, making them sovereign. Countries might not treat with them, but that doesn't change the facts of life.

          I agree that the Confederate seizure of U.S. property was improper, but that was an act of war and not an act of treason, for the reason that the states had declared secession. Had some actors seized the property while still a part of the U.S. then yes, that would be insurrection, and those individuals should suffer the consequences. It doesn't justify a war of conquest, but a war of redress may have been appropriate until the U.S. government was compensated for the lost property and the expenses of military operations.

          Lincoln deserves no ass kising from Confederates or their descendents: he declared war on them and killed thousands.
          "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

          "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by American87 View Post

            Foreign recognition is not required for state sovereignty...Countries might not treat with them, but that doesn't change the facts of life.

            Lincoln deserves no ass kising from Confederates or their descendents: he declared war on them and killed thousands.
            It is noteworthy that the Confederacy was not recognized as a viable state by anyone.

            Lincoln did not declare war against the Confederacy. First, the Confederacy opened the ball by shooting first; second, they were in rebellion and Lincoln and the US government were in every right to oppose the rebellion and to subdue it.

            Those are 'the facts of life.' And for good measure, the official title of the Civil War is The War of the Rebellion.

            We are not now that strength which in old days
            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Massena View Post



              Those are 'the facts of life.' And for good measure, the official title of the Civil War is The War of the Rebellion.
              I think in this case the old English adage applies

              Treason never prospers for if it does none dare call it treason. (Sir John Harington)
              Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
              Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Massena View Post

                It is noteworthy that the Confederacy was not recognized as a viable state by anyone.

                Lincoln did not declare war against the Confederacy. First, the Confederacy opened the ball by shooting first; second, they were in rebellion and Lincoln and the US government were in every right to oppose the rebellion and to subdue it.

                Those are 'the facts of life.' And for good measure, the official title of the Civil War is The War of the Rebellion.
                What do you mean by “a viable state?” The Confederacy was a confederation of sovereign states.

                Lincoln declared war on the Confederates.

                Those are are the facts of life. The war departments name for the war was The War of the Rebellion. The name applied by everyone else is the Civil War or sometimes the American Civil War. The War Between the States is also commonly used.
                "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                Comment


                • #83
                  From the excellent book, highly recommended: WILLIAM LOWNDES YANCEY: THE COMING OF THE CIVIL WAR by ERIC H. WALTHER

                  Page 272:

                  "The MONTGOMERY WEEKLY POST, which had supported Bell and the Union, lashed out at Yancey, ridiculing him and other fire-eaters in a column called "Firing the Southerner Heart," and reprinted the Slaughter letter for good measure. Yancey was ready. Privately he told a friend, "I shall trod the path before me fearlessly - though filled with anxiety. I have done my duty by the Union - I shall do it by my State."

                  "Yancey's opportunity came in November 10 (1860), as a bipartisan meeting gathered at Estelle Hall to determine what to do next. Similar meetings spread across the South. In normally Whiggish Montgomery, voters had cast 818 ballots for Breckinridge, 577 for Bell, and 112 for Douglas, giving a pretty clear indication of things to come. Governor Andrew Moore and others spoke first, joined by men like Thomas Watts, a Whig unionist, to call for the entire South to secede. Then Yancey spoke, and laid down the gauntlet. Yes, he agreed, the whole South should secede. But what if several slave states lingered in the Union? Should Alabama wait? "Shall we remain and all be slaves? Shall we wait to bear our share of common dishonor? God forbid!" he cried, and received thunderous applause. Yancey called upon Alabamians to act for themselves. Secession would be peaceful, a mere withdrawal from the national compact by discontented states. Certainly the Buchanan administration would do nothing to impede secession, he promised. But if the Lincoln administration tried using force to stop or reverse secession, Yancey promised, "Our brethren from every southern State will flock to defend a sister State threatened by mercenary bayonets." Even if disunion did result in war, Yancey declared, rather than live under a government that violated the Constitution "and placed me in a position inferior to a Northern free negro," he would gather a corps of brave men who, "however few in number, would find a grave which the world would recognize, my country, as a modern Thermopylae." In 480 B.C., the outnumbered Spartans of Greece lost a heroic battle at Thermopylae against invading Persians. Secession waited just around the corner for Alabama, and with it Yancey, his state, and a southern republic would have their Thermopylae."

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                    I think in this case the old English adage applies

                    Treason never prospers for if it does none dare call it treason. (Sir John Harington)
                    We are not now that strength which in old days
                    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      It appears to me that we may call those who entered the Insurrection of 1861: State Patriots. Their primary allegiance is to their State, with only secondary allegiance to the Federal Republic, if at all for some. They see the Union as a "compact of states" which banned together for a handful of mutual interest reasons. Somewhat like anarchists see only compacts of associations of interested groups as constitutional; and the outside organized government they would see as potentially oppressive and unworthy. The State Patriots believe their State may simply withdraw from the Compact upon any feelings of threats or abuse heaped upon their offended State. See the Yancey statement above cited and that is why he saw no Federal violent response was lawful; because these fire-eaters convinced themselves it was their States right to simple secede from the Compact. There is no political procedure to file an application to secede/withdraw from the Union because once in it there is no leaving it. A State can not leave it because the ruling power brokers of that State feel threaten by future developments or future changes in interpretations of the Constitution in its amendment process. The States can only collectively revolt against the Federal Republic if the said Republic had become despotic and massively oppressive with disdain for the Constitution and rule of law. Those conditions did not exist in 1861 to justify an Insurrection of the Deep Southern States. Fear is not justification.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                        My dear foil, you've followed my mother's sage advice: "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle 'em with bullflop." I'd say that you've taken that advice to heart, confusing us all with gales of meaningless verbiage, posted in a format meant to distract the eye as well as the mind -- but it still hasn't deflected from the inherent flaw in your argument.

                        [B][URL="https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/member/11799-slick_miester"] - sic

                        The portions of the Constitution that I referred to earlier -- from Articles I and II -- exist today as they did in 1789: un-amended and un-altered. They've changed not one iota. Add to that, precedent set before 1860 undermines your entire argument. I know bring to your attention the Whiskey Rebellion of 1789.
                        sorry for delay i was banned.



                        I was referring to the fact that before the civil war the Constitution was viewed as delegated powers by the states to the federal and it contained what the federal could and could not do. So it did not have any authority to claim secession was legal, that was reserved to each state to decide. The sections you refer to as i pointed out only apply to where the federal has delegated authority from the states, thus from a pre civil war view, undermines your entire argument. That is why I said it must be viewed from the standpoint of before Lincoln and the republicans transformation of the union of the founders into a centralized nation. You are looking from a modern post civil war back into history, that is not good for history, good for myth making and indoctrination but that is all.




                        Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                        So not only in law but in fact did the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief legally possess the authority to mobilize Federal and militia assets for the purpose of putting down an armed insurrection against the constitutional authority of the United States. George Washington had set the precedent. Abraham Lincoln merely made use of it when a similarly illegal insurrection arose sixty-nine years later.
                        Before i give some details they wont give you, I must once more point out the southern states had left the union via legal secession. Thus there was no armed insurrection. Unless say Lincoln ignored the declaration and the union/Constitution of the fathers and waged war to transform us into a centralized nation. This was no secret, they were open about there nationalistic views.






                        Whisky Rebellion


                        People refused to pay a tax not just in Pennsylvania, but down to Georgia. Backed by public officials. Hamilton [nationalist high federalist] sent marshals and Pennsylvania armed the militia to defend their state. 2 protesters and 1 federal were killed in an altercation. Hamilton wished to send in federal troops and was opposed by Virginias like jefferson and Randolf. The governor of Pennsylvania and the chief justice said Hamilton would be in violation of the constitution. Hamilton mobilized an army and marched into Pennsylvania. Taxes were collected where the army was, but other areas did not pay it. The army did nothing, and the tax-went unpayed everywhere else. In 1801 when Jefferson came into power he repealed the and refunded the tax. 150 people were tired for treason by Hamilton, all were pardoned. Two were charged for drunkenness.



                        “And with respect to the transactions against the excise law, it appears to me that you are all swept away in the torrent of governmental opinions, or that we do not know what these transactions have been. We know of none which, according to the definitions of the law, have been anything more than riotous. There was indeed a meeting to consult about a separation. But to consult on a question does not amount to a determination of that question in the affirmative, still less to the acting on such a determination; but we shall see, I suppose, what the court lawyers, & courtly judges, & would-be ambassadors will make of it. The excise law is an infernal one. The first error was to admit it by the Constitution; the 2d., to act on that admission; the 3d & last will be, to make it the instrument of dismembering the Union, & setting us all afloat to choose which part of it we will adhere to. The information of our militia, returned from the Westward, is uniform, that though the people there let them pass quietly, they were objects of their laughter, not of their fear; that 1000 men could have cut off their whole force in a thousand places of the Alleganey; that their detestation of the excise law is universal, and has now associated to it a detestation of the government; & that separation which perhaps was a very distant & problematical event, is now near, & certain, & determined in the mind of every man.

                        I expected to have seen some justification of arming one part of the society against another; of declaring a civil war the moment before the meeting of that body which has the sole right of declaring war; of being so patient of the kicks & scoffs of our enemies, & rising at a feather against our friends; of adding a million to the public debt & deriding us with recommendations to pay it if we can &c., &c. But the part of the [president’s] speech which was to be taken as a justification of the armament, reminded me of parson Saunders' demonstration why minus into minus make plus. After a parcel of shreds of stuff from Aesop's fables, and Tom Thumb, he jumps all at once into his Ergo, minus multiplied into minus make plus. Just so the 15,000 men enter after the fables, in the speech.
                        -Thomas Jefferson Letter from Jefferson to James Madison, December 28, 1794,”




                        "This is critical because it argues powerfully against the view that Jefferson believed the federal government had the right to coerce a state. He said that George Washington provided no valid justification for “arming one part of the society against another.” He also objected to “declaring a civil war the moment before the meeting of that body which has the sole right of declaring war.”
                        -
                        Clyde N. Wilson From Union to Empire: Essays in the Jeffersonian Tradition





                        For more see here A Little Whiskey Rebellion
                        https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/b...eid=52e8d811ce

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by American87 View Post
                          The Whiskey Rebels did not secede via their state legislature as the New England states considered doing in the War of 1812 and as the Southern states did in 1861. The North needed the South to remain in the Union, or their economy and political agenda would have fallen apart, which is why they went to war. Other reasons for war included the belief that the non-Unionized states would go to war with each other. It was a question of, "Is secession the smart thing to do," not, "Is secession legal." Secession wasn't declared illegal until Texas v. White (1869). We discussed this case in a thread (https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...nists-traitors), and it may be wothwhile to reboot. Imo, Chief Justice Chase's opinion was a hatchet job, but like in all legal matters it's just my opinion. The North won and Salmon P. Chase was chief of the court; he led the others in their decision.
                          and as i point out in post 69-70, from the pre civil war perspective, nobody would care what the high court declared about secession, it was clear it was not a delegated authority given the federal by the states.


                          To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
                          – Thomas Jefferson letter to William C. Jarvis, 1820

                          “…the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
                          – Thomas Jefferson

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

                            Hogwash again. If the rebels/CSA were so proper diplomatically, why were they not recognized by a single foreign country as is proper diplomatically for a real nation-state? No recognition equals no nation according to diplomatic precedent and international law. Absent recognition the CSA is nothing but a bastard state, or perhaps a misguided fantasy, real only to the deluded few that believed so.

                            The seceding states were the ones responsible for not using the courts, and they alone. Their seizing and stealing federal property, exclusively military bases, equipment and the machines needed to produce same, created a situation that proved the fact that force must be used to meet the force employed by the rebels. The rebels alone dodged a legal decision by this act. They are at least pirates and thieves if not traitors.

                            The leadership of the south only avoided that last charge through the largess of men like Lincoln. Rather than castigating him, they, and their current incarnations should be kissing his ass and the asses of those of like thought for saving their lives at the war's conclusion.

                            Regards,
                            Dennis

                            countries wanted to reorganize the confederacy [the Vatican did] such as france/england but did not want to **** off the largest nation and military in the world. That is why France tried peaceful diplomacy but Lincoln could not allow his piggy bank to go nor of states challenging his to be empire. The south legally left the union from a pre civil war stance [though the states]. Lincoln would not call back his invasion ft sumtner. But really who cares what england thinks, what did the founders think?




                            “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own Revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.”
                            -Abraham Lincoln The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States House of Representatives 1848


                            “The tree of liberty must refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
                            -Thomas Jefferson

                            “The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.-the one for liberty in the union of the States, the other for liberty in the independence of the States.”
                            -John B Gordon Confederate General Reminiscences of the Civil War



                            The right to self govern is maybe the most fundamental American right there is. It is what led to the revolution. America prior to 1860 maintained a confederation of sovereign states. These states were self governing and independent. The right to succession has been a fundamental right of sovereign states in American history. It has been more common of northern states in America prior to 1860, to discuss or threatened succession. Lincoln turned history on its head and declared the nation created the states and states had no right to leave the union. He also declared the entire people [not the states simple democracy] created the union.

                            “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government” -Declaration of Independence

                            The declaration of Independence says “These colonies are, and ought to be free and independent States.” The deceleration is itself a succession document. When the revolution ended the king of England made a peace treaty with each and every state, not with one American nation. Under the articles of confederation article 1 section 2. “Each state retains its sovereignty freedom and Independence.” This is at odds with Lincolns view. Madison said “The truth is, that the great principle of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of Confederation.” but even so, some will say the peoples of the states gave up sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution.

                            "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disapprove its right of doing so, and
                            the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right. -Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America


                            The first draft of the preamble to the constitution read “we the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode island etc.. when they realized not all states might adopt it, they left out the states to ratify as they chose to. The constitution was than ratified by the states, not the American people.

                            The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
                            - ARTICEL 7 U.S Constitution

                            During the Virginia ratification Patrick Henry [anti federalist] warned “we the people” instead of “we the states” would lead to a consolidated national government. Federalist Governor Edmund Randolf [and later federalist Madison and Pendelton] assured him “we the people was to be understood as “we the people of each ratifying state.” and saw his objection as trivial since it would be assumed the people of the states were those referred to.

                            “It will be a federal and not a national act... the act of the people, as forming so many independent states, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is the result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the union, nor from the majority of states.”
                            -James Madison


                            John Randolph of Roanoke said in a speech in congress in 1823 “gentlemen may say what they please of the preamble of the Constitution, but this Constitution is not the work of the amalgamated population of then existing confederacy, but the offspring of the states.” The self governing sovereign people of the individual states appointed representative from each state to ratify the constitution it was not a majority vote nor the Philadelphia convention that ratified the Constitution.

                            “We thew people does not constitute a people separate from the states, for the same reason that the peoples of the representative states do not exist independent of the national community.”
                            --Marshall L Derosa the Confederate Constitution of 1861 University of Missouri Press 1991



                            “The power to coerce a State into obedience to the federal authority, was distinctly proposed in the convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, to be a part of the Constitution, and it was as distincly rejected. Such a power was totally inconsistent with the whole theory of the Constitution, which was — that the Constitution was a compact between the States.”
                            -Report on the confederate committee of foreign affairs 1861



                            The states existed prior to and created the constitution out of their own free will. In federalist #39 James Madison “The father of the constitution” said the constitution was ratified by the people “Not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent states to which they respectively belong” “states were considered a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only bound by its own voluntary act.” Virginia, New York and Rhode Island reserved the right to succeed from the union before ratifying the constitution.

                            “The laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.”
                            -New York’s ratifying convention


                            They also declared the right for other states, the others assumed this was the case. In the constitution “united states” is always in plural, not the way we use it today as to refer to one nation. When the constitution was formed, the states had to seceded from the articles of confederation to do so. Federally founded West Point taught the right to secession in its textbook “a view of the constitution of the united states of america by William Rawle.”

                            "It depends on the state itself...weather it will continue a member of the union. To deny this right would be inconstant with the principles on witch all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people are in all cases a right to determined how they will be governed...the states then may wholly withdraw from the union."

                            The constitution nowhere outlaws secession. The constitution established where the federal government has been delegated authority. The rest is reserved to the states. Secession than is a state issue. Nothing is authorized to the states in the constitution [secession or otherwise] since the purpose of the constitution is federal powers.

                            “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
                            -10th amendment U.S Constitution


                            Thomas Jefferson

                            “Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself...each party has equal right to judge for itself”
                            -Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson


                            “Sever ourselves from the union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness”
                            -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 1799


                            “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.”
                            –Letter from President Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestly, Jan. 29, 1804



                            Jefferson predicted the western states would form a confederacy in 17 86 after the jay-Gardoquit treaty. He said “the moment they resolve to do this the point is settled” “Forced connection is neither our interest nor within our power.” Jefferson wished to “confederate with those alone witch are for peace and agriculture opposed to unlimited commerce and war [federalists]

                            Hartford convention

                            At the convention the New England states debated whether they should leave the union. No one questioned the legality, simply if it should be done. In 1801 Thomas Jefferson as president said “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed.” Jefferson said alittel rebellion is “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” When as president the New England federalist were considering succession Jefferson said “If any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation...let us separate”

                            Other Founders

                            “But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the centre”
                            -John Quincy Adams Northern federalist 1839


                            Northern federalist Daniel Webster said in 1851 that if the north would not comply with the fugitive slave law, “The south would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain can not be broken on one side, and still bind the other side” There was talk of civil war in 1800 but Jefferson won election, had he not, we might have split long before.

                            “The thirteen states are thirteen sovereign bodies”
                            -Oliver Ellsworth

                            “The states are nations”
                            -Daniel Webster Commentaries on the Constitution

                            “If the union was formed by the accession of states then the union may be dissolved by the secession of states”
                            -Daniel Webster U.S senate Feb 15 1833

                            “The attributes of sovereignty are now enjoyed by every state in the union”
                            -Alexander Hamilton

                            “The first thing I have at heart is American liberty, the second thing is American union
                            -Patrick Henry

                            “The Union, next to our liberties most dear.”
                            -John C. Calhoun

                            “Had Buchanan in 1860 sent armed forces to prevent the nullification of the fugitive slave law, as Andrew Jackson thretned to do so in 1833, there would have been a secession of fifteen northern states instead of thirteen southern states. Had the democrats won in 1860 the northern states would have been the seceding states not the southern.”
                            -George Lunt of Massachusetts Origin of the Late war

                            “It is in the power of the states to extinguish this government at a blow”
                            -John Randolph of Roanoke 1823



                            By 1860 clearly the southern states saw secession as legal but so did most in the north and many leading newspapers. West Virginia during the civil war seceded from the confederacy and the state of Virginia. f

                            “the leading and most influncial papers of the union believe that any state of the union has a right to secede”
                            -Davenport Iowa Democrat and news 11/17/60

                            “opposing secession changes the nature of government “from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism were one part of the people are slaves”
                            - New York Journal of commerce 1/12/61


                            “The great principles embodied by Jefferson in the declaration is... that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed” Therefore if the southern states wish to secede, “they have a clear right to do so”
                            -New York tribune 2/5/61


                            Secession is “the very germ of liberty...the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state”
                            -Kenosha Wisconsin Democrat 1/11/61



                            If for any cause the Government...should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
                            What then is the South to do? Suffer the compact which brought them into the Union to be violated with impunity, and without means of redress; submit to incursions into their territory and trespass upon their property by northern abolitionists?...Who expects, who desires the South to submit to all this?
                            -Dubuque Iowa Herald 1860




                            Treason

                            Article 3 section 3 of the constitution says

                            Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

                            This is what Abraham Lincoln did in the American civil war, he waged war against the southern states.

                            “To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised... a complying state at war with a non complying state. Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another? Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself- a government that can exists only by the sword”.
                            -Alexander Hamilton Northern federalist

                            “Before the war a union a collection of states... after the war we began to speak of a nation”
                            -Ken Burns



                            But southerns would also say the south was not leaving the original American republic, but establishing it. That is why before the war the south often thought the north should succeed.

                            "All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."
                            Gen. Robert E. Lee Quoted in The enduring Relevance of Robert E Lee



                            Also being called a traitor is not automatically a bad thing, our nations greatest heroes IMO were traitors. The declaration of Independence was a secession document of sovereign states choosing separation from England's tyrannical government. From Great Britans point of view, they were the loyalist and Americans the traitors. The difference is the north won the war. Had America lost its war for independence, they would have taught the founders as traitors and rebels in textbooks in America. During the revolution “loyalist” like Benedict Arnold were the traitors. John Brown is celebrated in the north yet he formed his own constitution, left the union and created a nation “the republic of liberated slaves”


                            “If the declaration justified the secession of 3 million colonists in 1776 then why did it not justify the secession of 5 million southerns from the union in 1861”
                            Horce Greeley


                            “Rebellion if successful, is sacred, if not, is treason”
                            Proverb
                            Last edited by Sic Semper Tyran; 17 Jun 19, 18:28.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Massena View Post

                              It is noteworthy that the Confederacy was not recognized as a viable state by anyone.

                              Lincoln did not declare war against the Confederacy. First, the Confederacy opened the ball by shooting first; second, they were in rebellion and Lincoln and the US government were in every right to oppose the rebellion and to subdue it.

                              Those are 'the facts of life.' And for good measure, the official title of the Civil War is The War of the Rebellion.
                              the south left by legal means [the states] but Lincoln would not call back his invasion ft sumtner. The vatican did reorganize the south and others such as france tried and england/france almost joined the south so long as the war could be won. Some are hesitant when the advantage is not so great but the cost would be [war with the north]. But really who cares what england thinks, what did the founders think?




                              “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own Revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.”
                              -Abraham Lincoln The War With Mexico: Speech in the United States House of Representatives 1848


                              “The tree of liberty must refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
                              -Thomas Jefferson

                              “The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.-the one for liberty in the union of the States, the other for liberty in the independence of the States.”
                              -John B Gordon Confederate General Reminiscences of the Civil War



                              The right to self govern is maybe the most fundamental American right there is. It is what led to the revolution. America prior to 1860 maintained a confederation of sovereign states. These states were self governing and independent. The right to succession has been a fundamental right of sovereign states in American history. It has been more common of northern states in America prior to 1860, to discuss or threatened succession. Lincoln turned history on its head and declared the nation created the states and states had no right to leave the union. He also declared the entire people [not the states simple democracy] created the union.

                              “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government” -Declaration of Independence

                              The declaration of Independence says “These colonies are, and ought to be free and independent States.” The deceleration is itself a succession document. When the revolution ended the king of England made a peace treaty with each and every state, not with one American nation. Under the articles of confederation article 1 section 2. “Each state retains its sovereignty freedom and Independence.” This is at odds with Lincolns view. Madison said “The truth is, that the great principle of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of Confederation.” but even so, some will say the peoples of the states gave up sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution.

                              "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disapprove its right of doing so, and
                              the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right. -Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America


                              The first draft of the preamble to the constitution read “we the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode island etc.. when they realized not all states might adopt it, they left out the states to ratify as they chose to. The constitution was than ratified by the states, not the American people.

                              The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
                              - ARTICEL 7 U.S Constitution

                              During the Virginia ratification Patrick Henry [anti federalist] warned “we the people” instead of “we the states” would lead to a consolidated national government. Federalist Governor Edmund Randolf [and later federalist Madison and Pendelton] assured him “we the people was to be understood as “we the people of each ratifying state.” and saw his objection as trivial since it would be assumed the people of the states were those referred to.

                              “It will be a federal and not a national act... the act of the people, as forming so many independent states, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is the result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the union, nor from the majority of states.”
                              -James Madison


                              John Randolph of Roanoke said in a speech in congress in 1823 “gentlemen may say what they please of the preamble of the Constitution, but this Constitution is not the work of the amalgamated population of then existing confederacy, but the offspring of the states.” The self governing sovereign people of the individual states appointed representative from each state to ratify the constitution it was not a majority vote nor the Philadelphia convention that ratified the Constitution.

                              “We thew people does not constitute a people separate from the states, for the same reason that the peoples of the representative states do not exist independent of the national community.”
                              --Marshall L Derosa the Confederate Constitution of 1861 University of Missouri Press 1991



                              “The power to coerce a State into obedience to the federal authority, was distinctly proposed in the convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, to be a part of the Constitution, and it was as distincly rejected. Such a power was totally inconsistent with the whole theory of the Constitution, which was — that the Constitution was a compact between the States.”
                              -Report on the confederate committee of foreign affairs 1861



                              The states existed prior to and created the constitution out of their own free will. In federalist #39 James Madison “The father of the constitution” said the constitution was ratified by the people “Not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent states to which they respectively belong” “states were considered a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only bound by its own voluntary act.” Virginia, New York and Rhode Island reserved the right to succeed from the union before ratifying the constitution.

                              “The laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.”
                              -New York’s ratifying convention


                              They also declared the right for other states, the others assumed this was the case. In the constitution “united states” is always in plural, not the way we use it today as to refer to one nation. When the constitution was formed, the states had to seceded from the articles of confederation to do so. Federally founded West Point taught the right to secession in its textbook “a view of the constitution of the united states of america by William Rawle.”

                              "It depends on the state itself...weather it will continue a member of the union. To deny this right would be inconstant with the principles on witch all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people are in all cases a right to determined how they will be governed...the states then may wholly withdraw from the union."

                              The constitution nowhere outlaws secession. The constitution established where the federal government has been delegated authority. The rest is reserved to the states. Secession than is a state issue. Nothing is authorized to the states in the constitution [secession or otherwise] since the purpose of the constitution is federal powers.

                              “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
                              -10th amendment U.S Constitution


                              Thomas Jefferson

                              “Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself...each party has equal right to judge for itself”
                              -Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson


                              “Sever ourselves from the union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness”
                              -Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 1799


                              “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.”
                              –Letter from President Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestly, Jan. 29, 1804



                              Jefferson predicted the western states would form a confederacy in 17 86 after the jay-Gardoquit treaty. He said “the moment they resolve to do this the point is settled” “Forced connection is neither our interest nor within our power.” Jefferson wished to “confederate with those alone witch are for peace and agriculture opposed to unlimited commerce and war [federalists]

                              Hartford convention

                              At the convention the New England states debated whether they should leave the union. No one questioned the legality, simply if it should be done. In 1801 Thomas Jefferson as president said “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed.” Jefferson said alittel rebellion is “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” When as president the New England federalist were considering succession Jefferson said “If any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation...let us separate”

                              Other Founders

                              “But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the centre”
                              -John Quincy Adams Northern federalist 1839


                              Northern federalist Daniel Webster said in 1851 that if the north would not comply with the fugitive slave law, “The south would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain can not be broken on one side, and still bind the other side” There was talk of civil war in 1800 but Jefferson won election, had he not, we might have split long before.

                              “The thirteen states are thirteen sovereign bodies”
                              -Oliver Ellsworth

                              “The states are nations”
                              -Daniel Webster Commentaries on the Constitution

                              “If the union was formed by the accession of states then the union may be dissolved by the secession of states”
                              -Daniel Webster U.S senate Feb 15 1833

                              “The attributes of sovereignty are now enjoyed by every state in the union”
                              -Alexander Hamilton

                              “The first thing I have at heart is American liberty, the second thing is American union
                              -Patrick Henry

                              “The Union, next to our liberties most dear.”
                              -John C. Calhoun

                              “Had Buchanan in 1860 sent armed forces to prevent the nullification of the fugitive slave law, as Andrew Jackson thretned to do so in 1833, there would have been a secession of fifteen northern states instead of thirteen southern states. Had the democrats won in 1860 the northern states would have been the seceding states not the southern.”
                              -George Lunt of Massachusetts Origin of the Late war

                              “It is in the power of the states to extinguish this government at a blow”
                              -John Randolph of Roanoke 1823



                              By 1860 clearly the southern states saw secession as legal but so did most in the north and many leading newspapers. West Virginia during the civil war seceded from the confederacy and the state of Virginia. f

                              “the leading and most influncial papers of the union believe that any state of the union has a right to secede”
                              -Davenport Iowa Democrat and news 11/17/60

                              “opposing secession changes the nature of government “from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism were one part of the people are slaves”
                              - New York Journal of commerce 1/12/61


                              “The great principles embodied by Jefferson in the declaration is... that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed” Therefore if the southern states wish to secede, “they have a clear right to do so”
                              -New York tribune 2/5/61


                              Secession is “the very germ of liberty...the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state”
                              -Kenosha Wisconsin Democrat 1/11/61



                              If for any cause the Government...should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
                              What then is the South to do? Suffer the compact which brought them into the Union to be violated with impunity, and without means of redress; submit to incursions into their territory and trespass upon their property by northern abolitionists?...Who expects, who desires the South to submit to all this?
                              -Dubuque Iowa Herald 1860




                              Treason

                              Article 3 section 3 of the constitution says

                              Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

                              This is what Abraham Lincoln did in the American civil war, he waged war against the southern states.

                              “To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised... a complying state at war with a non complying state. Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another? Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself- a government that can exists only by the sword”.
                              -Alexander Hamilton Northern federalist

                              “Before the war a union a collection of states... after the war we began to speak of a nation”
                              -Ken Burns



                              But southerns would also say the south was not leaving the original American republic, but establishing it. That is why before the war the south often thought the north should succeed.

                              "All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."
                              Gen. Robert E. Lee Quoted in The enduring Relevance of Robert E Lee



                              Also being called a traitor is not automatically a bad thing, our nations greatest heroes IMO were traitors. The declaration of Independence was a secession document of sovereign states choosing separation from England's tyrannical government. From Great Britans point of view, they were the loyalist and Americans the traitors. The difference is the north won the war. Had America lost its war for independence, they would have taught the founders as traitors and rebels in textbooks in America. During the revolution “loyalist” like Benedict Arnold were the traitors. John Brown is celebrated in the north yet he formed his own constitution, left the union and created a nation “the republic of liberated slaves”


                              “If the declaration justified the secession of 3 million colonists in 1776 then why did it not justify the secession of 5 million southerns from the union in 1861”
                              Horce Greeley


                              “Rebellion if successful, is sacred, if not, is treason”
                              Proverb

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Bo Archer View Post
                                From the excellent book, highly recommended: WILLIAM LOWNDES YANCEY: THE COMING OF THE CIVIL WAR by ERIC H. WALTHER

                                Page 272:

                                "The MONTGOMERY WEEKLY POST, which had supported Bell and the Union, lashed out at Yancey, ridiculing him and other fire-eaters in a column called "Firing the Southerner Heart," and reprinted the Slaughter letter for good measure. Yancey was ready. Privately he told a friend, "I shall trod the path before me fearlessly - though filled with anxiety. I have done my duty by the Union - I shall do it by my State."

                                "Yancey's opportunity came in November 10 (1860), as a bipartisan meeting gathered at Estelle Hall to determine what to do next. Similar meetings spread across the South. In normally Whiggish Montgomery, voters had cast 818 ballots for Breckinridge, 577 for Bell, and 112 for Douglas, giving a pretty clear indication of things to come. Governor Andrew Moore and others spoke first, joined by men like Thomas Watts, a Whig unionist, to call for the entire South to secede. Then Yancey spoke, and laid down the gauntlet. Yes, he agreed, the whole South should secede. But what if several slave states lingered in the Union? Should Alabama wait? "Shall we remain and all be slaves? Shall we wait to bear our share of common dishonor? God forbid!" he cried, and received thunderous applause. Yancey called upon Alabamians to act for themselves. Secession would be peaceful, a mere withdrawal from the national compact by discontented states. Certainly the Buchanan administration would do nothing to impede secession, he promised. But if the Lincoln administration tried using force to stop or reverse secession, Yancey promised, "Our brethren from every southern State will flock to defend a sister State threatened by mercenary bayonets." Even if disunion did result in war, Yancey declared, rather than live under a government that violated the Constitution "and placed me in a position inferior to a Northern free negro," he would gather a corps of brave men who, "however few in number, would find a grave which the world would recognize, my country, as a modern Thermopylae." In 480 B.C., the outnumbered Spartans of Greece lost a heroic battle at Thermopylae against invading Persians. Secession waited just around the corner for Alabama, and with it Yancey, his state, and a southern republic would have their Thermopylae."

                                good post. I like the upper south best.


                                “That however wrongfully any state might resume its Independence without just cause, the only remedy was conciliation, and not force, that therefore the coercion of a sovereign state was unlawful, mischievous, and must be resisted, there Virginia took her stand”
                                -R L Dabney a defense of Virginia and the South 1867



                                https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...eave-the-union

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X