Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A sensitive question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by American87 View Post

    No one argued secession until the 1850s.
    Ever hear of the Hartford Convention?

    New England, in opposition to the War of 1812, certainly discussed and argued the issue. So the subject came up twice before 1850.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by American87 View Post

    South Carolina did not threaten to secede during the "Nullification Crisis;" they nullified a federal law, then agreed to a compromise to reduce the tariff over time.
    That is incorrect. They threatened to secede and Jackson was having none of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • American87
    replied
    The main issue is that the "Southern" states seceded mostly to protect slavery, and that makes their cause difficult, if not impossible, to sympathize with.

    If they seceded over the tariff, or for a constitutional cause, like having more representatives in Congress, they would be much easier to support.

    Imagine this: the North secedes to create a free country without slavery, and the South invades them, wins the war, and passes a constitutional ammendment to allow slavery in all the states. Who would you sympathize with then?

    Leave a comment:


  • American87
    replied
    Originally posted by daddut roger View Post
    Until the war of 1861-1865, American jurists and statesmen viewed the right to secede in several ways. The isolation of John C. Calhoun has probably never been greater than the nature of this right. For him, it is indeed a constitutional right. The other authors adopted two types of position. Some accepted it, but they conceived as an extra-or supra-constitutional right; the rest rejected it, but most believed that there was a right of revolution or resistance.

    Calhoun's position seems all the more original than the acceptance of the revolution which belongs to the common fund of American political thought in the prolongation of the founding events of the Republic. Calhoun was able to rely implicitly on the work of two authors: St. George Tucker and William Rawle. First, Tucker sees the Constitution as a pact between equal and sovereign states. The federal government is not a party to this pact, but its creature, responsible to the states and the people of the states for the performance of its duties. According to the Virginian, sovereignty resides in the peoples of the various states. The ordinary procedure to prevent usurpation of powers by the federal government is the call for the election of new representatives or the use of a constitutional amendment. The Union being only a confederation, it can be dissolved by mutual consent and secession is one of the rights of the States: the Union being a confederation made up of perfect, that is to say sovereign and independent States, any State can make a voluntary withdrawal. Second, Rawle views the Constitution as a pact and the work of the people of each state. The people of each state have the power to decide if they want to remain a member of the Union. This power derives from the right of the people to determine in all cases how it is to be governed. The secession of each state depends on the will of its people at the end of a deliberate, clear and unequivocal act. Rawle plays on the parallelism of forms: voluntarily entering the Union, states can leave as they please.

    The Secession War is most often called in the United States "Civil War", and this ab origine. The expression is not innocent since it suggests that the secession was not legitimate and that it was only a revolutionary or rebel movement which was treated as such. Besides, A. H. Stephens, titled his opus magnum [A Constitutionnal View of the Late War between the States]… an elliptical reference to "the recent war between the states" ... The constitutional implications are also clear. Secession War refers to international law, Civil War to domestic law. The expression "Secession War" seems more adequate when the southern positions are analyzed and it is this expression which will be retained, beyond any ideological inference. It is also traditionally used in France since the preludes of the conflict.
    That is how the country was founded: sovereign states delegating authority to a federal government, and any authority that is not explicitly delegated is reserved to the states or to the people of the states.

    The Federalist Papers are full of this, and even Alexander Hamilton agreed that all states retained all soveriegn powers not "delegated" or "alienated" to the federal government.

    No one argued secession until the 1850s. Then it was like the American Revolution of the 1760s, when colonists began digging up their rights, constitutional law, a list of grievances and claims, and then declared independence when their rights as Englishmen were at stake.

    It was the same with secession: no one thought about it to any great extent until it became an issue, then the South dug up its rights and constitutional law, and realized they had every right to secede.

    If we're going by the literal text of the Constitution, the X Ammendment reads that any power not explicitly delegated to the federal government is reserved by the states or the people of the states. Any power.
    If we're going by the Founder's intentions, the Federalist Papers make it clear, even Hamilton's, that the states retain all sovereign powers not delegated or alienated to the federal government. "Sovereign power," of course, means anything the state wants to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    Do you mean Philip St George Cooke?

    If so, his son-in-law was Jeb Stuart.
    Yeap,,, Cooke, Sorry I left that out. There were so many families (including mine) that were divided.

    Leave a comment:


  • American87
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    The actual official title of the Civil War is The War of the Rebellion. And there is no inherent right for any state to secede in the US Constitution.

    South Carolina threatened that action during the administration of Andrew Jackson and he threatened to lead an army into South Carolina if they actually attemtpted it. They backed off.
    South Carolina did not threaten to secede during the "Nullification Crisis;" they nullified a federal law, then agreed to a compromise to reduce the tariff over time.

    Leave a comment:


  • American87
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    Really? How is that? Could you be more specific?
    Because any right not delegated to the federal government is left to the states or the people of the states.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post

    I did know that, Did you know who Philip St. George was? He and his son in law had a major problem....
    Do you mean Philip St George Cooke?

    If so, his son-in-law was Jeb Stuart.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

    No again. Not in this case anyway. The American colonists were Englishmen and women, not some captive population like the Aztecs, Incas or many others that could be mentioned. They were equal to the folks in London by virtue of citizenship and the rights inherent in that situation. In spite of that, they were denied those rights with no way to appeal.

    In the US, the southern states were equals who were denied no rights accorded to same. They had mechanisms built into the political system, in our case the Supreme Court, to have their say legally. They chose to try and win their argument by the sword, and in that court the decision went against them. Case closed.

    Regards,
    Dennis
    Great points, there is some attitude or idea within the southern cause that the "South" was somehow always separate from the "North" from the beginning, This is a myth that used to fan the flames of secession through the popular press of the era.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    The southern officers were good and loyal until the question of their home states seceding came up.

    Did you know that Winfield Scott was a Virginian? So was George Thomas. John Gibbon was a North Carolinian. They stayed loyal. Gibbon's entire family turned on him and they never reconciled.
    I did know that, Did you know who Philip St. George was? He and his son in law had a major problem....

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Excellent explanation-very well done.

    Leave a comment:


  • D1J1
    replied
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post

    It's normal that colonies doesn't have their word to say. They're second rate after all. On the other side it's normal when an equal partner decides to leave.
    No again. Not in this case anyway. The American colonists were Englishmen and women, not some captive population like the Aztecs, Incas or many others that could be mentioned. They were equal to the folks in London by virtue of citizenship and the rights inherent in that situation. In spite of that, they were denied those rights with no way to appeal.

    In the US, the southern states were equals who were denied no rights accorded to same. They had mechanisms built into the political system, in our case the Supreme Court, to have their say legally. They chose to try and win their argument by the sword, and in that court the decision went against them. Case closed.

    Regards,
    Dennis

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by D1J1 View Post

    Apples and oranges here, sorry. The states were equal partners and integral parts of the United States. As English colonies the original 13 states were not equal and integral parts of the mother country. The lack of representation in Parliament, and ownership of said colonies by the crown or proprietors vested by the monarch demonstrates that conclusively. The legality of the American Revolution is a subject for another forum.

    Regards,
    Dennis
    It's normal that colonies doesn't have their word to say. They're second rate after all. On the other side it's normal when an equal partner decides to leave.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    The southern officers were good and loyal until the question of their home states seceding came up.

    Did you know that Winfield Scott was a Virginian? So was George Thomas. John Gibbon was a North Carolinian. They stayed loyal. Gibbon's entire family turned on him and they never reconciled.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    The actual official title of the Civil War is The War of the Rebellion. And there is no inherent right for any state to secede in the US Constitution.

    South Carolina threatened that action during the administration of Andrew Jackson and he threatened to lead an army into South Carolina if they actually attemtpted it. They backed off.
    Absolutely true, Buchanan blew it. He should have had federal troops march on Montgomery when the southern hell raisers were holding there convention. He (and Lee) had no problem using federal troop to stop John Brown from conducting his rebellion at Harpers Ferry. Nor did Buchanan have any problem suppressing the "Mormon Uprising." A side not, the federal troops that carried out the mission in Utah were lead by none other than Albert S. Johnston.
    So basically, anyone who attempted to cause an uprising to end slavery as in Brown's case, or any citizens of a territory who chose to secede from the Union (even before becoming a state of that Union) future Confederate Generals had no issue, while still serving the Union, in leading troops against those people.
    Even more hypocritical, Lee had no problem leading Federal troops through Virginia to attack John Brown,

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X