Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
US Civil War: Legal basis?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Darrenatwork (U11744656) on Monday, 6th October 2008
I'm not particularly up on the causes of the US civil war but I believe that part of the cause was the North's unwillingness to let the South leave the Union. What was the legal position for a State back then? Could a State leave the union legally or was the North just upholding the law of the time? (I believe that no US State is now entitled to leave the union but I'm not sure about back then)
-
Message 2
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 6th October 2008
That was the question.
-
Message 3
Posted by Darrenatwork (U11744656) on Monday, 6th October 2008
Thanks for explaining it so thoroughly
-
Message 4
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 7th October 2008
Darren,
What WC means is - that was Your question is the point of the war... -
Message 5
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 7th October 2008
(I believe that no US State is now entitled to leave the union but I'm not sure about back then)Ìý
This is not the case now. The right of a state to secede from the union is still ambiguous. The US Constitution does not address the issue. -
Message 6
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Tuesday, 7th October 2008
Here's what President James Buchanan said in 1860 when the question arose and some states were considering leaving the union:
<quote userid=</quote>"The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not " necessary and proper for carrying into execution " any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution." </quote>
Since that time, the legality of secession has been investigated several times, and the following observation seems to sum up the general feeling:
<quote userid=</quote>''The issue of the right of a State to secede is of more than historical interest. Since the end of the Civil War in 1865, though several amendments giving the federal government greater power over the states have been ratified, there have been no textual changes to the Constitution which explicitly prohibit secession.
There was no attempt by either side in the Civil War to resort to federal courts or international arbitrators for a decision on the legality of secession. Nor has any state attempted to secede since the Civil War. ............although secession may be a political or historical issue to many, it has never been settled as a legal one...''</quote>
I believe that's were issue stands at present. Essentially, since the point has never been challenged in US courts, it has never been officially determined whether or not secession is legal. -
Message 7
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Wednesday, 8th October 2008
One reason that the Justice Department refused to prosecute Jefferson Davis and the other high unpardoned officials for treason is that they couldn't make a convincing argument that secession was illegal. They feared an embarrassing court ruling to that effect .
The general opinion of legal scholars who wrote on the subject before the civil war was that it was implied in the structure and theory of the constitution that secession was legal. How can you rationalize that the states had the right, power, and authority to create the federal government in the first place and yet not have it to leave it? Those who fought to keep the south in the union, to my knowledge, didn't usually refer to it as "illegal".
The entire sense of states right has receded to such a degree now that I don't think that people have the same sense of it. We have the notion which would have been ludicrous to the antebellum nation of the federal government claiming waters far out beyond the waters that they "let" the states control. That would have been ludicrous in a previous age because it would have been obvious to them that the federal waters off the coast of Florida for example can't exceed state boundaries because it is only the fact of Florida's presences and claim that gives the feds a claim.
The Cruishank opinion of the US Supreme court offered, indirectly in another matter, a rationale for the new thinking that tied the new imperial nation which had taken for itself the right to coerce membership to the old written constitution voluntarily entered. They laid out a concept of dual citizenship--that the citizens were citizens of both the states and the United States simultaneously with certain rights guaranteeed by one, and certain other rights by the other sovereign entity. One can then rationalize that the US had the right to invade to protect the citizenship status of the minority of US citizens in those states that didn't want to secede. Of that is pretty much the argument that justifies Russia's invasion of Georgia.
Rather than directly establishing such a perspective as sound principle, far better just to leave where American history leaves it--just one of those episodes outside of the constitution where the ruling legal principle is the law of the gun. In the only opnion that I know of where the US Surpeme course refered to the precedent making status of the civil war that is where they left it--just an unpleasant matter that was settled by the gun to which the practical law must now accomodate itself. -
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 10th October 2008
There was never any legal question. The south had all the right to become independent just like everyone else in this world and the north had everyright to make an offensive war to reconquer these lands just like everyone in the world did. That was not a civil war although people were still then largely Anglosaxon, it was just a war. The American revolution was more a civil war than the north and south.
-
Message 9
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
Confederates, and their latter day sympathisers now, have always shown a tendency to want it both ways. While insisting on ther legality of secession, they seem to feel that in some way they remained "Americans" and that the US government had some sort of obligation to "resperct their rights". But of course it didn't. If secession was legal then they were now foreigners, on whom the US could make war if it chose.
The point was gleefully made by General Butler, when approached by some Virginia planters whose slaves had fled to the Union lines. When asked to return them in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Law, he responded, no doubt with amusement, that this law had no application to a foreign country, which he understood Virginia now claimed to be, and she "must reckon it one of the infelicities of her position that in this much at least she is taken at her word". He offered to consider the planters complaint if they would take loyalty oaths to the Unites States, whose citizens they had to be in order to benefit from the law. They didn't see the joke and went off in something of a huff. -
Message 10
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
You set a very low standard for yourself resting your conception of morality on that of Beast Butler, otherwise known as Spoons for his habit of stealing silverware from his hosts. What next? Going to quote Eichman in a discussion of personal moral responsibility?
It was Butler who insisted on having it both ways--the right to invade the south on the grounds that there was no secession and it was still part of the United States but the freedom to rule his occupation as an absolute conquerer above the law rather than a servant and enforcer of United States law.
Confederates were in every way "Americans". It was the Confederate States of America and what they were trying to defend, whatever you may think of it and however much it may be embarassing to the self-image of modern Americans, was far more an integral part of what the United States was at it's birth than the new industrial civlization that was developing in the North and threatening to overwhelm them. They thought that they were fighting for the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
Men like Butler on the other hand, represented the worse face of America by any conception. A man who would have been perfectly at home in a black SS uniform of a different time and place, a man of the lowest personal and public morals who unabashedly abused whatever power he could gather. He represented the worst aspect of the Northern aggression--those who saw it as an opportunity for unrestricted plunder and who only needed one justification for invasion and loot--because they could. It is the morality of the pirate, the burglar, and the theif. Fortunately that was not the motivation of the majority, but in selecting him, you pretty soundly make the Confederate's point about as well as it could be made. -
Message 11
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Saturday, 11th October 2008
While a poor military commander Butler seems othweise quite enlightened according to his wiki entry. He drafted a significant amount of civil rights legistlation and sought to repress the KKK.
I can't see how any reasonable person can critise someone for refusing to return an escaped slave to his 'owner'.
-
Message 12
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
Men like Butler on the other hand, represented the worse face of America by any conception. A man who would have been perfectly at home in a black SS uniform of a different time and place, a man of the lowest personal and public morals who unabashedly abused whatever power he could gather. He represented the worst aspect of the Northern aggression--those who saw it as an opportunity for unrestricted plunder and who only needed one justification for invasion and loot--because they could. It is the morality of the pirate, the burglar, and the theif. Fortunately that was not the motivation of the majority, but in selecting him, you pretty soundly make the Confederate's point about as well as it could be made. Ìý
Then 'tis passing strange that Butler had never shown the slightest hostility to the South before the outbreak of war.
He was not only a Democrat (the more pro-Southern party) but aligned with its more Southern wing. In 1860 he supported the Southern Democrat, John C Breckinridge, against the Northern Democrat Douglas, and of course against the Republican Lincoln. At the Democratic convention earlier in the year, he had gone even further, voting several times for - would you believe? - Jefferson Davis as their Presidential nominee.
Butler abandoned his Southern allies only after they had abandoned the United States.
As for aggression, Northern or otherwise, the South didn't seem to have any problem with it in 1846, when their congressmen and senators voted overwhelmingly for war with Mexico, nor in 1848 when their senators voted to ratify a peace treaty stripping that nation of half its territory. Of course, it all seemed different when their own sacrosanct region was on the receiving end.
. -
Message 13
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Sunday, 12th October 2008
I can't see how any reasonable person can critise someone for refusing to return an escaped slave to his 'owner'.Ìý
Arguably the US Constitution did impose such a duty, stating that a person "held to service or labour in one state, escaping into another" must be returned on demand by "the party to whom such service or labour may be due".
Clearly, however, this right could be exercised by Virginians only if Virginia was still one of the United States - which these Confederate planters maintained that it was not. Butler no doubt viewed it as a bit of chutzpah for a group of rebels to thus apply to the government against which they were rebelling, hence his response.
It all soon became moot with the realisation that the Confederate Army was employing slaves to dig trenches, build earthworks, and other activities. This made the negroes into a species of military equipment, or "contraband of war", which the Union was entitled to seize. Butler used this as a rationale for retaining fugitives (if a Union soldier found a lost Confederate rifle, he would not give it back to its owner) to the point where "contrabands" entered the language as a nickname for runaway slaves. Finally, of course, the Emancipation Proclamation came, and thereafter no slaves in rebel states would be returned. -
Message 14
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 13th October 2008
KB, you come from generations of Louisianans; tell our British hosts how 'Beast' Butler earned his nickname in New Orleans.
-
Message 15
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Wednesday, 15th October 2008
I am sure that those who are really interested --the curious minds have already checked and now understand why any who know of his history would find that citing him to defend a point of fairness to be. . . well, no point in agravating things further by pointing out the obvious.
In summary, while occupying New Orleans, he behaved about as close to a Nazi occupier as Lincoln's fear of world opinion would tolerate and his limited porcine imagination could conceive. He started by hanging a man who cut down a US flag--which had actually been run up under orders of a mere Captain without the Union commander's orders or approval because the official surrender of the city had not yet been offered or accepted--they were a shore party there to negotiate that surrender. To hang a man for an non-capital and non-violent offense over which he yet had no jurisdiction even by the military law under which he operated was, at the time, a shocking war crime of the first rank that got a strong reaction in Britain and France as well as the South. Davis issued orders that in the event of his capture, he would be tried for war crimes and subject to hanging and to my knowledge there was no dissent even from the North regarding that position by the Confederacy.
The man, Mumford, was a US Army veteran, had served under the US flag, and did not handle it disrespectfully. He was delivering it to the mayor, still in negotiations regarding the cities surrender, when an angry mob tore it from him. At his hanging, he gave a speech which reportedly dwelled on the true meaning of the American flag, and how his love for those same values lay behind his support of the Confederacy.
Later, Butler issued the infamous "Order 28" which had any woman who was rude to Union soldiers arrested as a prostitute. And then of course there was the repeated pilfering of silverware, noteworthy only for what it says about his lack of imagination rather than his morals, as plunder and looting was what the entire US force in Louisiana turned to once they had secured the Mississippi. At least that other war criminal Farragut had the good sense to try to steal something really worthwhile--2 years of cotton harvest--a mountain of cotton that would have made him one of the richest men in America had he succeeded. I am referring to the Red River Campaign--an inland campaign placed under Navy command to take advantage of the rule that made captured loot the personal property of the officer in command rather than US Government property. -
Message 16
Posted by Darrenatwork (U11744656) on Monday, 27th October 2008
Thanks for the replies, very interesting especially about Butler.
-
Message 17
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 28th October 2008
Later, Butler issued the infamous "Order 28" which had any woman who was rude to Union soldiers arrested as a prostitute. And then of course there was the repeated pilfering of silverware, noteworthy only for what it says about his lack of imagination rather than his morals, as plunder and looting was what the entire US force in Louisiana turned to once they had secured the Mississippi. At least that other war criminal Farragut had the good sense to try to steal something really worthwhile--2 years of cotton harvest--a mountain of cotton that would have made him one of the richest men in America had he succeeded. I am referring to the Red River Campaign--an inland campaign placed under Navy command to take advantage of the rule that made captured loot the personal property of the officer in command rather than US Government property. Ìý
Butler certainly had no love of the south and the "rudeness" law extended provisions beyond what was reasonable. However the "rudeness" encountered often included physical violence againt Union soldiers who were not allowed to respond in kind. The fact that New Orleans women felt confident enough to assault union soldiers actually mitigates against some of the charges made against Butler.
As for Farragut, since the law made captured property into personal property then he most definitely was not stealing. -
Message 18
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008
You really expect readers to believe that he issued an order to arrest women making rude gestures as a way of outlawing assault? That assault was not already an enforceable offense? Come on. You overdo yourself by even internet standards of lack of reality based logic and specious sophistry.
I always thought of taking what isn't yours stealing, but have it your way on that point. Somebody has to stand by poor little Eichman I suppose in his defense that massacring innocent Jews wasn't murder since it was legal. I was taught that taking what isn't yours is stealing but I guess that is a southern thing.
That isn't what made Farragut a war criminal. He earned that title when, in a pique over guerilla actitivty surrounding Baton Rouge, he withdrew his forces from the occupied city back to his gun boats, gave it a good shelling to punish the occupants for the resistance his troops met in the surrounding countryside, and then reoccupied it.
By the way, he never got the cotton. The locals burned it rather than let him have it. -
Message 19
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 29th October 2008
You really expect readers to believe that he issued an order to arrest women making rude gestures as a way of outlawing assault? That assault was not already an enforceable offense? Come on. You overdo yourself by even internet standards of lack of reality based logic and specious sophistry.Ìý
As I said, the law went beyond what was reasonable. But the women of New Orleans had given Butler the excuse to crack down.
I always thought of taking what isn't yours stealing, Ìý
It has always been legal for one side to take war materials from the other side. You could argue whether cotton really constituted a war material. The Confederate government certainly seemed to think it a staple commodity which would pay for the war and tried to control the export.
Somebody has to stand by poor little Eichman I suppose in his defense that massacring innocent Jews wasn't murder since it was legal. Ìý
Kurt, that comment really isn't worthy of you. Your contributions are better than that.
I was taught that taking what isn't yours is stealing but I guess that is a southern thing.
Ìý
Probably a southern view in this case.
If the cotton had been rifles, I think you'd agree that the North would have had the right to do what they liked with them. The fact that it was cotton used to pay for the war pushes it to a greyer area. But one could put the arguement that it was essential material for the Confederate war effort and therefore a legitimate seizure. -
Message 20
Posted by philsheridan (U10029160) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
Quite incredible that anyone should accuse the Union rather than the Confederacy of nazi tendencies. It was the South that was fighting to preserve slavery - and don't give me the old rubbish about just protecting their independence - it was the right to preserve and extend slavery and the perceived threat to slavery that drove the confederacy out of the Union.
It was the South who deliberately killed black Union soldiers after they surrendered at Fort Pillow and the Crater and other occasions and threatened to hang white officers of black regiments.
It was a Confederate general - Forrest - who founded the Ku Klux Klan after the war. -
Message 21
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
It was the South that was fighting to preserve slaveryÌý Is it still a big secret that the war was not about slavery at all, when it broke out?
-
Message 22
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
The Southern economy was underpinned by slavery.
The "State's Rights" the South were fighting for fundamentally came down to the rights to own and deal in slaves there wasa domestic slave trade, even if the Confederate Constitution outlawed the international slave trade (nice touch).
The war was always about slavery, even if many people on both sides were not prepared to accept that as an overt reason at the start. Lincoln couldn't make it overt until he had secured the states sympathetic to slavery which had remained in the Union.
I cannot think of a single reputable historian who does not regard slavery as a major cause of the Civil War.
No secret, just a fundamental misrepresentation. -
Message 23
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
LostWeekend
The "State's Rights" the South were fighting for fundamentally came down to the rights to own and deal in slaves there wasa domestic slave trade, even if the Confederate Constitution outlawed the international slave trade (nice touch)Ìý The problem is that nobody - including Lincoln - had been forcing the Southern States to abolish slavery until after the war began in pril of 1861. The Confederate grievances had been mostly related to Trade Tariffs, I understand. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued in September of 1962. Seems a bit of a stretch in terms of causality. -
Message 24
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
in pril of 1861Ìý That would be April 1861, according to the modern calendar, of course
-
Message 25
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
The Emancipation Proclamation was issued in September of 1962Ìý
September 1862, I mean. Sorry. -
Message 26
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
The two events which made war inevitable were the Dred Scott decision of 1857 in which the Supreme Court under Chief justice Roger Taney ruled that blacks could not be considered "citizens" of the US as whites were and had no entitlement to the rights whites had been provided by the US Constitution and that Congress had no authority to rule slavery illegal anywhere in the territories (i.e. parts of the US that had not yet achieved statehood).
This effectively voided the Missouri Compromise of 1820 under which the US was effectively divided into slave and free areas at the 36o 30' line of latitude (the Mason-Dixon line) which not only divided the states but also the Louisiana Purchase territory acquired by Jefferson in 1803. To maintain a balance in Congress (and prevent slavery either being repealed or enforced by constitutional amendment) Missouri was admitted as a slave state whilst Maine was admitted as a free state.
The Dred Scott decision enraged abolitionists as it seemed to suggest that slavery was entrenched in the constitution whilst not satisfying slavery supporters since it opened up the possiobility of constitutional amendment as the only means of outlawing slavery and thus made the admission of new states a vital question.
This emphasised the importance of the second "event" or rather dispute which was "bleeding" Kansas which was a territory straddling the Mason-Dixon line which sought statehood and where violence was endemic throughout the 1850s between pro- and anti-slavery supporters (including John Brown and his four sons who moved to Kansas specifically to ensure Kansas' admission to the Union as a Free State).
Under the Compromise of 1850 (very reluctantly agreed to by the President, Millard Fillmore) California, which also straddled the Mason-Dixon line, had been admitted as a Free State which made the allegiance of Kansas that much more significant. Buchanan, the President from 1857, although personally opposed to slavery, thought that Kansas had to be admitted as a slave state to preserve the constitutional balance and appointed a pro-slave Governor who introduced a pro-slavery constitution but after a vehement campaign in the Senate, led by Stephen Douglas who had defeated Lincoln in the Illinois Senatorial election of 1858 (and was the Democratic nominee for President in 1860) and a campaign of tit-for-tat violence by the abolitionists (with pro-slavery retaliation), including Brown, inside Kansas, two referenda rejected the pro-slavery constitution and Kansas was eventually admitted to the Union as a free state in 1861.
It could be said that the origins of the war lay, in a legalistic sense, in the halls of the Supreme Court, since a peaceful resolution of the slavery issue seemed to be foreclosed, and, in an actual, physical sense, in the cornfields of Kansas which in 8 years of bitter and bloody fighting set a pattern of death, destruction and atrocity on both sides that would become all too familiar in the rest of the United States in the following four.
Buchanan's equivocal attitude must bear much of the blame for not exerting sufficient moral or, indeed, physical force to quell the violence in Kansas and allow it to be admitted to the Union as either a free or slave state. He was like the driver of an out-of-control train that was heading to an inevitable wreck. No wonder he said to Lincoln on the day he left office:
"My dear sir, if you are as happy on entering the White House as I on leaving, you are a very happy man indeed."
Although probably the greatest of all Presidents succeeded the worst of all Presidents Lincoln's tenure of the White House was to be marked by very few days of happiness. -
Message 27
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
The problem is that nobody - including Lincoln - had been forcing the Southern States to abolish slavery until after the war began in pril of 1861. Ìý
He didn't need to. He merely forbade the expansion of slavery, which was enough in itself for the slaveholders to walk out over. Lincoln was willing to tolerate their revolting institution in states where it already existed, provided they didn't contaminate the virgin lands of the West by introducing it there.
The Confederate grievances had been mostly related to Trade Tariffs, I understand. Ìý
Funny then, that they re-enacted the tariff as it stood at he time of secession. The Republicans did indeed increase it later, but that was a result of secession, made possible by the withdrawal of Southern senators from Congress.
Nor iirc did the various Ordinances of Secession make any mention of the tariff. They mostly excoriated northerners for having "denounced as sinful the institution of slavery" and the like. -
Message 28
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 2nd February 2009
suvoretz
No, the problem is, you are confusing the immediate situation with the underlying causes of the war.
Lincoln had no chance to "force" anything - the southern states started to secede as soon as Lincoln was elected (it is South Carolina's inglorious boast that it was "the first to fight")and his predecessor, still in office, did nothing. By the time Lincoln took office on 4 March 1861, seven states were out and conflict inevitable.
The southern States seceded because of the threat to their slavery-based way of life. They could not make slavery explicit to their cause because, to succeed, they knew they needed international support, and Great Britain and France, who had abolished slavery decades before, would not aid an explicitly slave nation against a free one.
Conversely, Lincoln and his supporters could not afford to turn the issue explicitly into a fight to free the slaves until he had secured his domestic position, despite the advantages internationally to such a move.
Both the above were political necessities, but they do not change what the war was fundamentally about.
All the standard histories give prominence to slavery as a cause, as I pointed out before, and this interpretation is supported by a profusion of contemporary commentaries and accounts. The only people who deny it are those who want to ennoble the "Sacred Cause" as a fight to uphold individual rights (rather like those Wehrmacht generals who argued they were the champions of Western civilization against the Communist barbarians, rather than the instrument of Nazi oppression).
I would endorse Allen's analysis of Dred Scott.
I also -
Message 29
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
Mikestone8
He merely forbade the expansion of slavery, which was enough in itself for the slaveholders to walk out over. Lincoln was willing to tolerate their revolting institution in states where it already existed, provided they didn't contaminate the virgin lands of the West by introducing it thereÌý This does not make too much sense logically. If the Southern States were so eager to expand slavery across the Union, how would the secession from the very same Union accomplish that? -
Message 30
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
LostWeekend
The southern States seceded because of the threat to their slavery-based way of life. They could not make slavery explicit to their cause because, to succeed, they knew they needed international support, and Great Britain and France, who had abolished slavery decades before, would not aid an explicitly slave nation against a free one. Conversely, Lincoln and his supporters could not afford to turn the issue explicitly into a fight to free the slaves until he had secured his domestic position, despite the advantages internationally to such a move.Ìý
When you say 'slavery-based way of life' you surely mean that the Southern States economy was predominantly agricultural. It is quite obvious that the trade tariffs were instituted to protect industries in the North. These tariffs were devastating for the Southern economy. The abolition issue came as a result, not as the reason. In fact, before the war broke out, Lincoln was explicit in that the abolition was not his concern. -
Message 31
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
LostWeekend
The southern States seceded because of the threat to their slavery-based way of life. They could not make slavery explicit to their cause because, to succeed, they knew they needed international support, and Great Britain and France, who had abolished slavery decades before, would not aid an explicitly slave nation against a free one.Ìý
In the heat of Secession the Southern papers explicitly stated the real reason was slavery. Only after a year of blockade and frustrated diplomacy did they switch to 'states' rights' and the usual 'defending one's home.' Not that anyone was fooled. -
Message 32
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
suvorovetz,
When you say 'slavery-based way of life' you surely mean that the Southern States economy was predominantly agricultural. It is quite obvious that the trade tariffs were instituted to protect industries in the North. These tariffs were devastating for the Southern economy. Ìý
The South never made tariffs a major issue. And even so, how did supposedly such unpopular tariffs clear the evenly-split Senate? -
Message 33
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
Mikestone8
He merely forbade the expansion of slavery, which was enough in itself for the slaveholders to walk out over. Lincoln was willing to tolerate their revolting institution in states where it already existed, provided they didn't contaminate the virgin lands of the West by introducing it there
Quoted from this message
This does not make too much sense logically. If the Southern States were so eager to expand slavery across the Union, how would the secession from the very same Union accomplish that?Ìý
I entirely agree. It wasn't logical. They were no longer in a logical mood, but rather so paranoid as to "go ballistic" at the election of the most mildly antislavery of Presidents.
The same applies even more, if anything, to their other gripe - that Northerners were evading the Fugitive Slave Law and failing to return runaways. Of course, once the South had won its independence, it would be a foreign country, and the FSL would no longer apply to it. In the case of the Territories, they may have vaguely assumed that they could conquer a "fair share" of the West, but short of conquering the entire North they were bound to lose the FSL. -
Message 34
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
I entirely agree. It wasn't logical. They were no longer in a logical mood, but rather so paranoid as to "go ballistic" at the election of the most mildly antislavery of PresidentsÌý
I have to say that you guys seem to be pretty selective at interpreting the warring parties' positions on this. Personally, I don't have any allegiance to either Rebels or Yankees on this, and it seems to me implausible that the Southerners would be so completely irrational just because some of them were used to have their shrimp gumbo served by a slave. -
Message 35
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
suvorovetz
... and it seems to me implausible that the Southerners would be so completely irrational just because some of them were used to have their shrimp gumbo served by a slave.Ìý
Yet they had. -
Message 36
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
it seems to me implausible that the Southerners would be so completely irrational just because some of them were used to have their shrimp gumbo served by a slave.Ìý
It was far more than that though. Slavery made money for slave owners. It was an institution which underpinned the entire economy of the South and paid for the lifestyle of the southern gentlemen who ruled those states.
Slavery may not have been the direct cause of the war, but it was the direct cause of secession. Have a look here:
for the reasons given by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas. All of them very explicitly list the right to hold slaves, and the northern threat to this as a reason for seceeding. Not my words, or some historian's, but the words the States choice to publish alongside their Ordinances of Secession. -
Message 37
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
I have to say that you guys seem to be pretty selective at interpreting the warring parties' positions on this. Personally, I don't have any allegiance to either Rebels or Yankees on this, and it seems to me implausible that the Southerners would be so completely irrational just because some of them were used to have their shrimp gumbo served by a slave.Ìý
I'm afraid that's how nations (and parts of nations) sometimes do behave. Look up the Salem witch trials, or the MacCarthy era. FTM, note how the US reacted to 9/11 by lashing out at Iraq, which had about as much to do with it as Abraham Lincoln had to do with the John Brown raid. No doubt examples of the same phenomenon could be found in other countries too. You get lots of irrational behaviour in human history. -
Message 38
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
Mikestone8
Look up the Salem witch trials, or the MacCarthy era. FTM, note how the US reacted to 9/11 by lashing out at Iraq, which had about as much to do with it as Abraham Lincoln had to do with the John Brown raidÌý You used quite a soup here. Honestly, I don't buy your argument. I would say that cloudj's post above is much more convincing, for it goes right to the source. Of your examples - taken one by one and separately, as they should be - the rationale is definitely there. But this thread is not about those. -
Message 39
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Darrenatwork
"I'm not particularly up on the causes of the US civil war but I believe that part of the cause was the North's unwillingness to let the South leave the Union. What was the legal position for a State back then? Could a State leave the union legally or was the North just upholding the law of the time? (I believe that no US State is now entitled to leave the union but I'm not sure about back then)"
Dealling with your question involvesa convoluted answer, so please bear with me while i convolute.....and try to cover as many issues as possible.
To look at it another way, the first wave of secesion occurs many months before the Republicans take office, and the prior Prrsident sought the USA Atorney General legal opinion, (AG Black) who wrote the last pre war legal advice to POTUS, in which he advised that secesion was not not unconstitional nor unlawfull, and that POTUS had no lawful right to opose secesion with the use of force. This was the outgoing POTUS posistion and others have briefly outlined Buch words, but failed to understand where they come from, which was the USA AG legal written opinion, on secesion in general and specificly if the 1795 Militia act allowed POTUS to use force to prevent it.
A clear cut issue one might think, but there is more to it. The newish Republican party had in its party manifest for 56 and 60, the stated posistion that secesion was treason, and would be treated as such, this, along with many other things was something new in the US political system, it was the answer to states rights that curtailed and often prevented majority rule, as states, and thats all states, would refuse to go under a threat of secersion unless they got concesions. In 56 Va and other southern states obtained the mandate to secede and called up their militia to inforce such secesion should the Republicans win the election, but that did not come to pass, whover 00 of 000s of citizens voted to secede in 56 and no one was arrested or told they breaking any law when they did so, Va as an example voted to secede in 56, not to do so in 61 and then to do so in 61, a portion of VA voted to secede from Va and created WVa, so citizens of what is now WVa voted in 56, 60 not to secede from the Union, to secede from the Union, and finaly to secede from VA. Not bad for something that was acording to the Republicans treason, and to the FF the ultimate exprersion of free citizins.
So what did the existing law have to say i feel you might be wondering, so lets recap what the FF had to say on the matter, before refusing POTUS and Congress on 3 seperate occiasions the legal right to use force.
Lincoln called up the state militia for service,to supress insurection, under the constition this is a function of congress, and no insurection can exist till the judiciary rules it to do so, and US law states that only a part of state against the state itself can be in insurection and aplication by the state gov or legilsture to Federal authorityys is required for federal troops to enter the state to put down the insurection, the upper southern states then seccedded on this breach of the constition, which is what creates a state of war between the states.
The more I reflect on the use of force, the more I doubt the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy of it, when applied to people collectively, and not individually. A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seems to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. I hope that such a system will be framed as might render this resource unnecessary.
madison
It has been observed, to coerce States is one of the maddest projects ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying State at war with a non-complying State, Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another — this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its Federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well-disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — a Government that can exist only by the sword
hamilton.
Whether Congress has the constitutional right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in Article I, section 8, is that, "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water." This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power "to provide for calling forth the militia," and to use them within the limits of a State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow, that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes: 1. To execute the laws of the Union, that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties. 2. To suppress insurrection against the States, but this is confined by Article IV, section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people. 3. To repel invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory. All these provisions are to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve their peace, and not lunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution that military force would not only be useless but pernicious as a means of holding the States (Union) together.
If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would ipso facto be an expulsion of such State from the Union. And if Congress shall break up the Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the "domestic tranquility" which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?
The right of the Central Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot be denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State government, or to prevent a threatened violation of the Constitution, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.(
US AG 1860 opion to the president on the use of force against the states that had left.
"How absurd it is to suppose that, when different parties enter into a compact for certain purposes, either can disregard any one provision, and expect, nevertheless, the other to observe the rest! ...[I]f the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect [a] part of the Constitution... and Congress provides no remedy, 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." D Webster.
The 1795 Act that Lincoln used, he did have authority to use as POTUS, USSC had already rulled that POTUS can recognise insurection and act to supres it, but must imediatly call into sesion Congress to explain himself, and obtain ex postfact Congresional aproval or face impeachement. The purpose of this exception to the act of 1795 was to allow POTUS to swiftly order US federal troops to respond to indian attacks and so enter states without being asked in by the Gov or legislature who would in normal circustances do so before letting them in, otherwise its an act of war and invasion by a forgien power as the law then stood.
(B Wade (Republican )had to say in Congress on secesion in 56.
If they [the Southern people] do not feel interested in upholding this Union — if it really entrenches on their rights — if it endangers their institutions to such an extent that they cannot feel secure under it — if their interests are violently assailed by the means of this Union, I am not one of those who expect that they will long continue under it. I am not one of those who ask them to continue in such a Union. It would be doing violence to the platform of the party to which I belong. We have adopted the old Declaration of Independence as the basis of our political movements, which declares that any people, when their Government ceases to protect their rights, when it is so subverted from the true purposes of government as to oppress them, have the right to recur to fundamental principles, and if need be, to destroy the Government under which they live, and to erect upon its ruins another conducive to their welfare. I hold that they have this right. I will not blame any people for exercising it, whenever they think the contingency has come. I certainly shall be an advocate of that same doctrine whenever I find that the principles of this Government have become so oppressive to the section to which I belong, that a free people ought not longer to endure it.... I hope the Union will continue forever. I believe it may continue forever. I see nothing at present which I think should dissolve it; but if other gentlemen see it, I say again that they have the same interest in maintaining this Union, in my judgment, as we of the North have. If they think they have not, be it so. You cannot forcibly hold men in the Union; for the attempt to do so, it seems to me, would subvert the first principles of the Government under which we live.
In Chicago 1860 the Republican party adopted this resolution,Resolved, 1. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions, according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
On his way to Washington, D.C. to be inaugurated as President of the United States, Lincoln further elaborated on his party's platform in an address before the Indiana State legislature on 12 February 1861: "What is 'invasion'? Would the marching of an army into South Carolina, without the consent of her people, and with hostile intent toward them be 'invasion'? I certainly think it would, and it would be 'coercion' also if South Carolinians were forced to submit."
Sounds like Lincoln knew a duck when he saw one, he just chose to call it not one) only when a Radical party attempted to subvert the union into one in which a party would not be bound by the Constition took office as the controlling party, reaplcing the vol Union with one of involuntary Union.
When SC and the deep South secceded they gave a range of legal reasons ( two simple said they were Sov nations and therfore were required to give any reasons meerly exceised a right of sovrienty and secceded becausue the will of the people was the only legal requirement in law they needed) and the Federal government did nothing, the USA Atorney General wrote a legal opinion for the president (which i posted for you but youve cleary nevertaken the time to read) that the use of force was unlawfull to compel any state to return to the Union, and had been expressly denied to congress and the president. Months pass, and a new president comes into office, sacks the US AG and apoints a new one, months pass, and he then calls up the states militia to subdue insurection, with SC use of forece to regain fort Sumpter (Fort Sumpter was SC sov territory since the fort was not a Federal post, and the land title to it, legal change of land title started in 1812 still gave it to SC as the Federal government had yet to pay for the land/creation of the fort and take posesion and turn it into a federal post, the title deed requires that the Federal government within 20 years erect and maintain a garrison, in fact it is not untill 1896 that the federal government aquires and lawfull owns Fort sumpter acording to the US war Dept becomae federal property,) never mind that insurection in US law only exist for part of state agianst the state itself, and does not include a state against the Union, and that the Federal troops in it were there not only without Federal orders to do so but against express orders not to be there, issued by the president through the war Dept.( Martin v. Mott, 1827 is prcedent for what purpose the pres can call forth the miltia, it was afirmed that the pres can judge for himself what constitutes insurection or invasion and call forth the militia, when applied for by a stse legislture or gov but that this act requires constitional purposes, for which the act exist to cover.
It is both unconstitutional and murderous to kill even the enemies of the Government except by authority of law, and in the manner which the law prescribes. If a man who is not an enlisted soldier or sailor in the service of the United States, should kill even a rebel, that man would commit by the act, a murder, just as much as he would do who would kill a felon under sentence of death, if the person performing the act had not the authority and command of the proper Court to do it. Hence to kill even an enemy legitimately, it must be done by authority of law; and hence too the making of war by mere Executive edict, instead of by the authority of Congress, is a crimainal act.
The president cant just stop you in the street and tell another to kill you and take your property because he says your in insurection, and he and you claim to be doing so lawfully.)
In law Federal troops found in any state without lawful orders to be there are guilty of a range of criminal acts, and subject to a range of sanctions, and the use of force to remove them is and was warranted and sanctioned by US law, so SC was acting withing the law to expell ilegal trespass into the state (and thats without even touching on it now being a state outside the Union)
So Lincoln replaces the constition with party doctrine, ie secesion is treason and insurection as set out in the 61 Republican party manifesto, despite the law not supporting this, calls up the militia ( April 61 Lincoln declares a blockade blockades are acts of war and the pres has not this right under the consttition, secondly blockades grant the right of beligerant status as only forgien nations can be beligerants, and th USC later in the Prize case says that " "The objection made to this ratificastion, that it is ex post facto and therfore unconstitional and void, might possible have some weight in criminal inditement in court", thats impeachment for high criomes and misdemeners btw) to enforce party doctrine, whehn he has no constional authority to do so, and this causes the upper southern states to seccede and that brings on full scale mil conflict.
The Militia Act certainly gave the President authority to call out the militia, even with the Congress out of session, for up to 90 days. It did so under three conditions:
1. Actuality or eminent threat of foreign invasion.
2. A "rebellion inside a state against the government thereof" and on the application of the legislature or governor of the state. Massachusetts, under Shays rebellion had refused offers of help, while Pennsylvania, under the Whiskey Rebellion, had asked for federal help.
3. The second part of the Militia Act covered the responsibility of the US marshals and in that, a US marshal could call upon militia to support his efforts to conduct his duties. It is this part that talks about "combinations." But, it also says that the US marshals in their districts had the same authorities that the state in question gave its sheriffs inside their counties. Marshals, although appointed by the President with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, did not serve at the pleasure of the President and once appointed, there was very little anybody in Washington to do to get them to do anything.
Lincoln commenting on th USSC rullings on his actions.
"I do not forget the posistion assumed by some that constitional questions are to be decided by the Supreme courts, nor do i deny such that such descisions are binding in the case upon the parties to the suit, as to the object to the suit, while they are also entitiled to a very high respect and consideration in all parralle casses by all other depts of the government.And while it is possible that a descision may be eroneous in any given suit, still the efect of following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be ocerulled and never become precedent for other cases, can better be born than could be the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is irevocable fixed by decions of the Supreme court, the people will have ceased to be there own masters, having resgned their government to the hands of the tribunal."
In other words, he would ignore them because he knew what was best for the people and would as he saw do what he saw as the best for them. Post war POTUS ;ost the right to call up the US Armed forces to crush the citizens, the posse comitas now prevents him from doing so.
FYI the native American Sioux secedded from the Union a couple of years back, several bands of indians secedded from their tribes and became wards of the US government, Texas secceded from Mexico and entered into the Union, as did every state in 1689 when the GR occured in the UK and each US colony voted to acept the new Monarch or retain allegiance to the old one by plebisite, and each colony would again use the citizens vote to leave the perpetual Union to the UK crown in 1776+, so there was abundent legal precedednt for secesion, its how the US got its capital, lands secceded by VA, Main came into being by an ordiance of secesion by 2 other states to create Maine, La from France ( FR and UK and Russian Constitions all allow secesion) -
Message 40
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Erik Lindsay
"This is not the case now. The right of a state to secede from the union is still ambiguous. The US Constitution does not address the issue."
No there is no ambiguiaty, secesion cannot now occur, because of the changes in the constition that make all citizens of the USA, wheras prior to 1865 there was only citizens of states. who had equal right sin other memebers states of the Union.
To secede requires that a state has citizens who owe their primal allegiance to that state, as in the US upto late 61, any federal post required an oath of allegiance to the Union, but before you could acept this federal posistion you had already taken an oath to your state, this is the primacy claim that allowed WP and others, to resign and follow there state and avoid prosecution. Congres changed the law in late 61 to prevent this from occuring again, changed the wording to include the word domestic after forgien in the oath etc. In law, there was no such entity asa USA citizen who was not first a citizen of state, they obtain USA rights and privaleges by virtue of their state being a party to the Union, The Constitional amndement making all citizens of the USA and congresional legilsdation in 1865 making this the case where before, in every law dealing with citizenship, naturlization etc, makes clear that there are only citizens of states, and that there is no such thing asa citizen of the Union only, meerly citizens of states who have rights while in the Union. C Pickeney is explicite on this when he drated the naturlization act, if a state barred someone from ctizenship, then no other state could grant them citizenship and so any stste could prevent anyone from becoming a citizen in the Union, because before then you had first to be a citizen in state before you could becoma citizen in another state.
Today no one owes allegiance to states that take a primal claim, so no secesion can occur legally unless the constition and congresionl laws are amended etc.
Constition in 1860 does addrese the issue, but to understand how you need to look into what the dead letter 10th amdement history was set up to achieve, and look at states ratification, 3 expressly stated that in adopting the new Union they reserved and retained the right of secesion, VA, RI, NY, and that VA insisted that the constition contain a clause that what one state had a right to do, all states had a right to do, so that any state had a right to secede if the will of the states citizens so deemed the action warrented. A first rate legal explantion of this and many other legal matters of seseion can be found in J R Grahem "A Constional hisory of secesion" on amazon for a reasonable outlay. USSC In Lutyher V Borden "If we consider the Union as anologous, not to the social compact between men,but to the conventions between individual states what is the doctrine resulting from these convenstions?.clearly acording to the expositiors of the Laws of nations, that breach by one article by a party, leaves all others at liberty to consider the whole convention dissolved, unless they chose rathwer to compell the deliquent party to repair the breach." in looking at if the federal gov intervened in RI civil warby sending in federal troops as per requested by one faction in RI.
Otoh Texas V White went into secession post war when it did not need to, the bonds Texas used was the excuse to rendera rulling on secesion, but was overturned later so has no legal weight, but the important point was that secesion by ststes was constitional if the states agreed it was, and unconstional if they did not, since we know how many states there was in 1860, we knoiw that 2/3 of ststes could not, because they themselves seceded or initialy refused to to coerce other states by disbaning ther militai and refusing POTUS call to fullfill militia duty, itsa mathamatical imposibility to get enough congresional votes to prevent secesion. -
Message 41
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 9th February 2009
KurtBronson
"The Cruishank opinion of the US Supreme court offered, indirectly in another matter, a rationale for the new thinking that tied the new imperial nation which had taken for itself the right to coerce membership to the old written constitution voluntarily entered. They laid out a concept of dual citizenship--that the citizens were citizens of both the states and the United States simultaneously with certain rights guaranteeed by one, and certain other rights by the other sovereign entity. One can then rationalize that the US had the right to invade to protect the citizenship status of the minority of US citizens in those states that didn't want to secede. Of that is pretty much the argument that justifies Russia's invasion of Georgia."
Picking up on your dual citizenship, when the US colonys secedded from the crown the USSC rulled that british citizens were now citizens of the new states and, Vanhornes lesseV Dorrance 1795 set out the relationship of citizens to states and states to each othe, Chase who signed the DOI further expands in ware V Hylton that the 13 seperate sov states were not a united body but seperate and sovrieg meerly joined in Union at state level, which was why each state had its own passports, USA passports dont exist till post war when laws were crafted to make all citizens of this new Nation and the old state pasports were removed, no longer was a citizen of a state, also a citizen with rights in the Union, he was now a citizen of the USA and the stste was largely an admistartive adjunct of the Union.
In your anology, under US law, insurection can only exist when the state says it exists and asks for federal help to supress it, ie insurection was defined in legal code to be a part of state against that state, therer wa no such provision for states against the Union, RI civil war of the 1840 and SC and congresional debtes make clear that no other state nor federal action was legal when 2 factions of a state sought to control that state, USSC did rule that congress wasa fitting arbitter to settle the dispute, and that martial law was constional when used to supress one of those fasctions by the in power faction.
another good anology is the Artilcles of Confederation, in which all states wwere held to ransom by RI, resulting in a new Union that did away with all states haveing to agree, and all but NC and RI seccced from the AOC to form a new Union, no one said it was ilegal to secede, only that it was the way to solve the problem, just as was WVA secersion from VA, the only difference was, as Lincoln put it, "secesion in the governments favour is disariable while when not, undsirbale".
Georgia exist because Russian constition allowed secesion by the 15 former Warsaw pact member states, citizens of those states give no legal pretext to Russia to mili intervene as those states are now sovriegn states no longer in alliance with Russia, irespective of some citizens dual citizenship, otherwise the US could invade any nation it liked on the pretext of protecting dual citizenship. Or icleand could wage war on the US for impresioning dual nationality icllanders who commit crimes in the uS that are not crimes in Iceland.
Mikestone8
Confederates, and their latter day sympathisers now, have always shown a tendency to want it both ways. While insisting on ther legality of secession, they seem to feel that in some way they remained "Americans" and that the US government had some sort of obligation to "resperct their rights". But of course it didn't. If secession was legal then they were now foreigners, on whom the US could make war if it chose.
The point was gleefully made by General Butler, when approached by some Virginia planters whose slaves had fled to the Union lines. When asked to return them in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Law, he responded, no doubt with amusement, that this law had no application to a foreign country, which he understood Virginia now claimed to be, and she "must reckon it one of the infelicities of her position that in this much at least she is taken at her word". He offered to consider the planters complaint if they would take loyalty oaths to the Unites States, whose citizens they had to be in order to benefit from the law. They didn't see the joke and went off in something of a huff.
Not Americans?, what an absurd comment to post, almost as absurd as not knowing that the Northern posistion was that they were still in the Union and therfore subject to all the protections of the constitionand laws of congress, and had not secedded and were in fatc in insurection. Its a shame the existing laws of insurection did not allow for a an entire state to be in insurection, but new laws would change all that. Lastly the US never declared war on the CSA, and you can now go off in a huff as you have not made a single point in your favour.
US legal posistion was that no state had left the Union, therfore under the law the FSA was in force and 0s of 000s of slaves were returned to there owners, Lincoln fired 3 top commanders (Hunter/Fremont i forget the third atm) for freeing slaves on there own resposnsobilty rather than obey his orders and the law of the land. To be fair, the confiscation acts on 62 which Butlers action prompted Stevens to enact, made it legal to take any slave, because they were property from there owner and retain it from him while his state was in rebelion and that slave was used to prosecute any war ability, but would be returned with compensation for lost labour at the end of the rebelion, this confiscation acts were amened as the war progressed that no compenestaion and any and all slaves were to be withheld, and finaly covered by the EP and constional amendment. The US law for insurection in 1860 required all property to be returned to insurectionlists at the end of the insurection and could only be retained from them during the period of insurction, this would of course be changed during the conflict.
You dont seem to know how the law worked, as citizens in rebelion, the FSA still applied to them, the new layaty oath that you refer to was an exppost facto loyatly oath that put citizens first loyalty to the federal gov not the state who he wasa citizen of, along with other ex post fact laws, such as 50% higher income tax while in rebelion which he would also have to take at the same time and pay upo any arrears.
Butler is a poor example, his brother in law apointed by Butler in LA to adminster the confiscation acts become a millionare from hsi fees of confisaction, 30% of the sstes pre war wealth was lost from confiscation, Bulersd family makeing very free with it for themselves.
Congres of the USA otoh, had this to say in 1860,in 1860 when the first wave secceded, Congress voted 36:19 to pass the following.
Resolved.
That, that in adopting the federal constition the states adopting the same acting severally as free and independednt sovriegnties, delegated a portion of their powers to be excercised by the federal government for the increased security of each agaianst dangers domestic as well as forgien and that any inter mmeddleling by any one or more states, or combinations of their citizens, with the domestic instituitions of the nothers , on any pretext whatsover, political, moral, or relgous, to a view of disturbing of subversion, is in violition of the Constition, inulting to the states so interfered with and endagers there peace and tranquility, objects for which the Constition was formed, and nby neccessary consequence tends to weaken and destroy the union itself.
Btw, the owners of the escaped slaves at Ft monroe did not need to take the loatly oath, some of them already had taken the oath and were from Maryland and not subject to the same posistion as owners from VA, who did not need to take any ax post fact oath anyways, (no more than German Judges who refused to enact the Nurmeburg race laws and went to the camps thmselves were wrong not to swwear an new ex post fact oath to the Fuher and follow new laws that dissgreed with and had no say in formulating,) having the the laws of armed conflict, required contraband to be returned to its owner when written request were presented stating that that the propertry was not nor had been been used to aid the insurection.
Mikestone8
Quite incredible that anyone should accuse the Union rather than the Confederacy of nazi tendencies. It was the South that was fighting to preserve slavery - and don't give me the old rubbish about just protecting their independence - it was the right to preserve and extend slavery and the perceived threat to slavery that drove the confederacy out of the Union.
It was the South who deliberately killed black Union soldiers after they surrendered at Fort Pillow and the Crater and other occasions and threatened to hang white officers of black regiments.
It was a Confederate general - Forrest - who founded the Ku Klux Klan after the war.
Nazi tendencys?, the CS was fighting to reatin the constional protection to determine for each state itself what to do on the question of slavery, and that slavery was constitionaly allowed in every state in the Union, the uS otoh was fighting to steal that propertry despite the constional protection of that property.
POTUs issued orders that were unconstional and apointed mil commanders who answered to him and not the courts of the land, congress than passed an indemnity clause preventing all pol and mil commanders from federal prosecution in supresion of the rebelion, it disenfranchised those citizens of states it said were in rebelion, dipiote no law in US that allowed a state to be in rebelion, part of the mil cammanders orders include, use of pows as human shileds, arbitary and summary execution for actions taken in other lcations, the forced ethnic cleasing of 12 MO counties anyone refusing to take the new layaty otha was expeeled from the state, or if found in that state summarily executed, repalce the articles of wr with the Lieber code, which allowes any action whatsover to be undertaken if the commander deems it justified by military necissity, resulting in any indian over the age of 9 deemed to be a hostile warrior and allowed to be killed, and women not takeng the layatly oath to be sold as a slave into northern idustry, or as Turchin did in the sack of the town, allow rape and plunder that was not seen before or since, only to be cashierd by his state for his sack of the town, and then empoyed by presidantial apointement one grade higher in rank than before, for war had indeed become a hard war by then and POTUS needed such men who would act as Nazis would do, you seem to forget it was the US policys towards Indians, ( some reservations hada higher mortality rate than Nazi camps who were delibertly trying to kill people as effiecently as possible) along with UK SAfrica and India policys ( Temple ration that was ment to be the min to keep a person alive for a short period, but extended for long periods that ment the human body was unable to come back from and death wasa certainty) that the nazis used as models for there own actions.
White officers leading black soldiers were under US law, commtting a crime punishible by death, and negros met such actions with their own as well, war is like that, one of N B Forrest men was toutured, his tounge cut out and when offical complainst were met with derison, Forrst, who was wanted dead by Sherman with reward of 25k for his killing, simply sent out men to kill those wo boatsed of the tourture, about a 12 or so had buthcerd 3, and mutilated others.
It was US General (Ewing) who commited ethnic cleasing in MO, it was a US (Sherman) General who denied that Native Americans were not "people" in law and had no rights and could be exterminated, that Habeus corpus did not apply to them, ( Human rights case of standing Bear V Crook awarded Standing Bears band of Indians the rights of people in law by USSC, Shwerman said ok, it only applies to that band, if others think they have the rights of people, they must bring suit to make their case) nor did the laws of war, and that women could be sterilised and males over 7 be treatred as combatents and no priosners was entirely valid when dealling with them.
More Negros were lynched in the North than in the south btw, and Sherman who looked and found nothing wrong im a mil court on Ft Pillow and had been told by Grant to take the strongest action in reprisials if he found the newspaper acounts t0 be correct, found nothing, and did nothing, possibly because some of those reported burnt alive in the papers or exectuted after surrendering were there to give evidence to the court of inquiry.
KurtBronson
It was Butler who insisted on having it both ways--the right to invade the south on the grounds that there was no secession and it was still part of the United States but the freedom to rule his occupation as an absolute conquerer above the law rather than a servant and enforcer of United States law.
Butlers legal mandate came from POTUS as military governer, he answered only to POTUS, was outside all courts in the land, including USSC who have no mandate to rule on any Mil governors general orders, only POTUS can force them to recind them, as long as those general orders confomed to the Articles of war and the Lieber code that repalced them in 63, and mil gov of any state hada wide range of actions he could undertake. In internationl law, Hallecks pre war WP disertaion on mil law for instance, allows mil force to rule absoluty untill the rebelion or war is resolved, and is still the case, just as insurection when succesfull is deemed the legal law of the land untill supresed, you can read on US and Philpines as to how the laws of armed conflicts evolve but the principle is the same and has not changed. -
Message 42
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Lastly the US never declared war on the CSA, Ìý
Well, as the Confederate Congress had declared war on the US on May 6, 1861, there was no particular need to. Though in any case, Congress regularly passed appropriations and other measures in support of the war so effectively declaring its existence whether using that word or not.
That, of course, assumes the CSA was a legal entity capable of declaring war on anybody. If it wasn't, of course, then it was just a band of rebels which Lincoln had a duty to suppress. -
Message 43
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
CS Declared war in response to Lioncoln proclamation of a blockade, a blockade only has legal meaning when used against a sovreign enemy, and is an act of war, you can close your own ports to all otyhers use, but that is not a blockade.
You are correct that Congress used the term war when refering the conflict and was the legal basis for post war reconstruction, POTUS otoh never went that far.
POTUS duty was and still is, is to enforce the law, there was then no law that made secesion a crime, there was then no insurection asa state could not be in insurection, only a part of state against that state, so no crime of secesion and no insurection, since no US codes are being challenged or broken POTUS duty6 is to do nothing as no laws were not being inforced.
Rebelion requires actions taken against law, if otoh you take any action against unlwaful usurption, your not in rebelion, but enfourcing your right to be goverened by the law. -
Message 44
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 16th February 2009
"The Confederate grievances had been mostly related to Trade Tariffs, I understand.
Quoted from this message"
"Funny then, that they re-enacted the tariff as it stood at he time of secession. The Republicans did indeed increase it later, but that was a result of secession, made possible by the withdrawal of Southern senators from Congress."
Picking up on teh above exchange, the walker tariff was replaced in law by the Morril tariff and was in place before begfore Sumpter and it5s adoption was one of the principly reasons for SC secesion, ie adopt this higher Traiff and we will secede if the people of SC delagate to their representaives the maqndate to do so, ran a state election on secesion and got their mandate by electing seceionist of Union represtsives in stste election, who then started the secesion ordinaces.
Before Sumpter the traiff had increased dramaticly but not to the levels of 1830s, when the CS and US fiscal policys were both in place, the same things were half the price in the South than the North, resulting in Republicans fear of massive ilegal trade via the southern river sytsem and an absolute decimation of Union international trade. The South had already taken more specie out of the Union and was now held in Southern banks than ever before, and close to 60% of all the gold in the US was no in Southernh banks, to pay for what the sou produced and exported, either into the north or for forgien export.
An econonic rival such as thye CS could not be tolerated on fiscal grounds alone, the Republicans lost in 56 and won in 60 with a 8% change in voter patterns, intrestingly 8% of voters is also around the same number of voters that would have been egffected by the new economic change to the Union.
1860 statistical data
The whole amount of duties collected from the year 1791, to June 30, 1845, after deducting the drawbacks on foreign merchandise exported, was $927,050,097. Of this sum the slaveholding States paid $711,200,000, and the free States only $215,850,097. Had the same amount been paid by the two sections in the constitutional ratio of their federal population, the South would have paid only $394,707,917, and the North $532,342,180. Therefore, the slaveholding States paid $316,492,083 more than their just share, and the free States as much less.
Muscoe Russell Hunter Garnett, The Union, Past and Future: How It Works and How to Save It (Charleston, South Carolina: Walker and James Press, 1850), also avaliable onlione in digital form. -
Message 45
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Tuesday, 17th February 2009
Picking up on teh above exchange, the walker tariff was replaced in law by the Morril tariff and was in place before begfore Sumpter and it5s adoption was one of the principly reasons for SC secesion, ie adopt this higher Traiff and we will secede if the people of SC delagate to their representaives the maqndate to do so, ran a state election on secesion and got their mandate by electing seceionist of Union represetsives in stste election, who then started the secesion ordinaces.Ìý
Beg pardon, but the Morrill Tariff was enacted on March 2, 1861, over two months after SC's secession from the Union. Nor did any other state secede between its passage and the attack on Ft Sumter.
Nor did SC's "Declaration of Causes" to justify its secession (online at
make any mention of tariffs. It did, however, complain against the Northern states as follows
"they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
. . . A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."
IOW, northerners were to blame for secession for daring to vote for a man who disapproved of negro slavery, and for presuming to tolerate the existence of antislavery societies, and allow them freedom of speech and assembly. Not much doubt what SC was seceding over. -
Message 46
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Tuesday, 17th February 2009
POTUS duty was and still is, is to enforce the law, there was then no law that made secesion a crime, there was then no insurection asa state could not be in insurection, only a part of state against that state, so no crime of secesion and no insurection, since no US codes are being challenged or broken POTUS duty6 is to do nothing as no laws were not being inforced. Ìý
Whether or not there was a law against secession as such, I think you'll find there were laws against the theft or destruction of the property of the Federal government. Or had John Brown committed no crime in attacking the US arsenal at Harpers Ferry?
Since Dec 20, 1860, secessionist elements in divers states had been comitting acts of grand larceny against the Federal government by seizing various forts, arsenals, revenue cutters, and much else besides. Such behaviour surely violated Federal laws, which the President was bound to enforce.
Perhaps, to be absolutely pedantic, Lincoln should have responded to the Sumter attack by sending a Federal marshal to arrest General Beauregard and the other perpetrators for malicious damage to US government property. However, I think he was probably right in assuming that these formed a combination "too powerful to be suppressed through the ordinary course of judicial proceedings" and hence requiring the calling out of the militia of the Union. -
Message 47
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 48
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 19th February 2009
Nickiow,
Using <> instead of [] will get you the quote effect you're looking for. -
Message 49
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Friday, 20th February 2009
Many thansk for that, much appreciated, i could not get it to work!, now all i need to do is stop infringing copyright and the posts will stay put.
-
Message 50
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Saturday, 21st February 2009
Tidied up the post, so in case Mike missed it, heres my counter points.
Ill explain, In Aug 1860 at the Republican party election, they adopted a motion to further increase the Traiff if elected, the proposed Morril was at that going through the debate stage in congess and was oposed by the deep south, who felt the high protectionst tariff of moril was harmfull to them, and defeated Morril 3 times before it passes when teh southern states had seceddd and were not there to prevent its passage, only 1 Sen for Tenn in all the South voted in favour of it. At that point in time the tax burden of the traiff was borne at $10 per southern head of population and $2 per Northern, and Morill would increase this already vast difference in proportion to the increase of Morril. Republicans get elected and congress debates the morril tariff, without the first wave of secesionist who have already seccede, had there votes ben used, Morril would not have passed, but they were not there to vote, and were forming there own Union, 2 days before leaving office Buch signs into law the Morril tariff, placing a 47% compared to a 10% CSA tariff for forgien nations to chose where to import. No contest in knowing that secesion of the deep south created an
economic rival that simply would eliminate northern international trade because of the high tariff difference.
The constriction requires taxation to be equal to the level of political representation, as Va statesmen Garnet, in the House of represenatives commented in 1850."The amount levied from customs since the foundation of the Government has
been about 1047 millions of dollars ; and had these duties been paid in the
ratio which the Constitution indicates as just and proper, the South would
have paid 442, and the North 605. But, as we shall see hereafter, the slave
States have really paid 798 millions, ar.d the free States only 249. Therefore
the South has gained nothing by this stipulation in return for her loss of representation."
Tariff was mentioned in the debates for electing representatives in SC who would all go one to vote to secede, its in those debates that tariffs were an issue,, SC chose to use the FSA as its legal breech of compact rather than the tariff, for dual reasons, first as a Stephens told SC leaders, only SC is ready to secede on the issue of the tariff, you will stand alone as you did in the days of Calhoun, and Rheet of SC was convinced of this and went with the FSA angle, as it also was perceived as a better point in gaining European recognition, memminger of SC was unconvinced and argued the tariff case in SC debates on secession. SC was primed for secession in any event, they had elected reprehensive on the issue of secession or not, the debate that most refer t5o are what SC had on to secede and on what grounds, debates therefore were simply on what best legal breech to give, one that aided internal likelihood of further states secession and increasing the economic viability of the new confederacy, and increased forgiven recognition likelihood.
The debates mention many issues, and the process is designed to come down to the one that all will use and stand behind, the final secesion simply states it has seccededed, the causes are given in in support of this action, and dont mention tarifs, and the debates to elect the people who than debate secesion asa recorse themselves contain all the local and international reason debated, which did incl;ude the tariff, Sc had wanted to secede over taxation for decades but to dom so alone was an excercise in futility.
"The economic basis of disunion in South Carolina" i forget the auther, is where you can see all the relevant economic reason why SC again sought to secede over the tariff, the only difference was that since the 30`s Calhoun and his succers had unified the south on secession, but broadly over the issue of threats to slavery rather than breech of compact over taxation.
Your confused as the process of how secession works, there were two views of what was required, one was that as a sov state could do what it wanted, it did not need a breech of compact to secede, only to have the will of the people deem it expedient. the second was that while in the compact, it required a breech of the conditions of the compact to be used as alegal reason for secession should that breech not be satisfied to the injured parties satisfaction.
Yes indeed the existence of republic party was the cause of the WBTS, it was the first party that publicly said that slavery could not exist over the whole domain of the Union, when the constiton allowed it to do so, but was to be confined to a certain location and prevented from expansion. This was not done on moral grounds but on political ones so that the senate representation of the southern section could then be outvoted by free state representation that would expand while the slave state repetition would be denied expansion.
Fyi only 1 free state allowed a free negro the right to vote at state level, and none at national level, and only 3 northern states allowed a negro to sit on jury, and 7 northern states denied any free negro the right to staty in those states beyond 24 hours, subject to penalty of enslavement if so caught.
And yes there was no doubt that SC seceded over the Republicans attempt to subvert the constriction, deny equal representation of a section of political society and exploit them at will.
immaterial, Lincoln claimed a legal thing to have occurred that was not illegal, he did not call up the militia to punish property damage he called it up the militia, "to executthe laws of the Union, to suppress insurection and repel invasion etc".
Now if you want to play fantasy what if Lincoln did something else, im not the man to accommodate you. if otoh you confine your arguments to what actually occurred, i am.
Theft of Union prorty was not what Lincoln said was happening, for the good and suffiecent reason that all states in the Union have a common pecuniary intrest in federal property, J Brown raidm finaced by 7 leading Republicans was insurection against the state of VA, so when the Repub;ican party funded a terriorst attack that killed VA citizens and destroyed both stste and federal property, it was VA state laws that prosecuted and hung the terrorist and it was federal action against the funders that saw them flee the country. Second f T Sumper was not a Union post, nor was it Union propertry and would not be be untill 1896 owned by the federal governemnt. In the war of 1812 Calhound wearing 2 hats, one as SOWar and another as reprsenting SC drew up the plans to create forts to defend Charelston harbour, in the legal documents for Sumpter, it was first leased to the Union on stipulation of federal payements to re emburse SC for meney spent creating it, and a garrison of feder!
al rather than state troops upon clompetion, 20 years pass and the forst still not finished as congress spends money selsewhere and wants to own the forts outright, new papers are drawn up and a state prblem with who owned the land complicated matters, but the upshhot was that once that was settled, congress agrred to purchase the land title and complet the fort within 20 years and garrion it, on payement of all outstanding State expense that the SC had borne it establishing an completion of the Fort, falilure to complet and garriosn withing 20 years would see the land title default back to SC. In 1860 neither condition had been met, SC had not been payed for its $ expenditure on Sumper and was finishing it of itself, POTUS orders no Union tropops to enter it as it would be ilegal to do so, and when lincoln as POTUS elect asks Scott to issue orders to take and hold all federal posts, Anderson gets conflicting orders that allowed him to occupy Sumper by bayonet charge, arres!
ting the state officials and workmen in Sumter. POUTS wants Anderson d
ismissed from the Army, for not only acting without orders but against orders.
The illegal occupiers of Sumter were ejected by use of force form SC owned property, breaking no law, any more than you as an individual would incur should you eject an illegal occupier from your home that you own.
Since Dec 20, 1860, secessionist elements in divers states had been committing acts of grand larceny against the Federal government by seizing various forts, arsenals, revenue cutters, and much else besides. Such behaviour surely violated Federal laws, which the President was bound to enforce.
To be factually correct, you would have to show why US forces acting without orders and against orders of the in office POUTS, werer in place that was not a federal post, but the property of the state of SC. To do so requires the legislature or the gov to request them in, penalty for doing so without that request, is to commit an act or war, and the penalty of a court martial carries the death penalty for US military who make war on a member of the Union.
Your still confused, calling out the militia is legal only when to done enforce the laws of the Union, secession was not insurrection, insurrection was not secesion.Insurection lin law only exist by apart of the state against the state itself and requires the gov or legislature to ask for any federal intervention whatsoever to quell it.
In the same way that POUTS can use the US Armed forces to stay in power when his part looses an election then. Or why the Posse comitias act took away POUTS self given authority to decide what was insurrection, ( requires the judiciary to tell him ones exists) or be requested by a state that federal forces be allowed into a state when part of it was in insurrection agai9nst that state itself.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.