Secession, right or wrong?

[lvaces]

[blockquote]

[blockquote]Which is where I have issue with your argument...putting it in modern terms. [/blockquote]

 
Reiryc - Of course we discuss this in modern terms, we are modern men and women, how could we do otherwise?  If you ask the question did the southerners of 1860 think they had the right to succeed from the Union, it is a trivial question, obviously they thought they did.  All we can do if we wish to discuss it is to discuss if we (modern men and women) think they were right.  That is not to say that we automatically judge everyone who falls short of early 21st century America ethics to be guilty and wrong.  It is just to say that we have an advantage of hindsight and distance that might give us some insights not available to men of that time.  
 
For example, white southerners considered slavery oppression. By this I mean if you asked them if they themselves were made into slaves would they feel oppressed, they would answer yes.  I don't think anyone would deny this.  Yet they felt perfectly free to enslave blacks and would deny that they themselves were oppressers.  Since their economy and society was so utterly dependent on black slavery, this is perhaps a natural psychological reaction so that they could both keep their wealth and not live with guilt; but looking back 150 years later, we are more able to see the contradiction or blindness of it, and understand how it affected their behavior. 
 
This is not to say that the southerners were evil, just that they were human and shied away from making some critical but true judgements on their society.  I think you see the same things happen all the time in the modern world.  Isn't it common place that people "make excuses" for things done by their country (often in war time) that they would never excuse if done by other countries.  I am sure I have been one of those people myself some time.  Similarly, don't we easily see the errors and contradictions in the beliefs of the other party politically while even intelligent people in that other party are curiously blind to them (and this is true no matter what party the "other" party is).  I would sure like to know what blind spots people of 150 years from now will see in our society that we are missing.  So if history books from 150 years from now would help us understand our time and behavior better, why doesn't bringing in knowledge gained in the last 150 years help us understand the people of 1860 better?   
 
P.S.  As others have pointed out, the problems of enforcing the Fugative Slave Law were not caused at all by the election of Lincoln, and he explicitly committed himself and his government to enforcing the law as best he could.  And on top of this, secession in no way solved that problem, but if successful would have made it worse.  If this is the best example of Lincoln's oppression that pro-legal secessionists can come up with, I don't think it says much for the strength of that case.  Better to just admit like Jonathan that they were not actually oppressed and go with the "we can leave when we want, oppressed or not" argument. 
 
 [/blockquote]

[RERomine]

In general, the South had to realize slavery was frowned upon the the civilized world. The problem is their economy was dependent upon it. They felt unilaterally eliminating it would ruin their economy. I know this argument means less than nothing to those enslaved, but it was a real fear to those reliant upon slaves for their work force. The only reason the demise of slavery didn't ruin the Southern economy was the war did that instead. This is one aspect of slavery we find difficult to see 150+ years removed from its demise.

While I can't think of any modern instance where morality is involved, picture losing something that would completely alter Western society: OIL. The hypothetical situation is OPEC stopped, for some reason, to export oil (don't ask me why). Gas prices would become prohitively expensive making it impossible to drive to work for most people. Everything dependent on trucks, trains and airplanes for distribution would drastically increase in price. Electricity prices would skyrocket. Anything produced on farms would increase radically. I could go on and on. Could we adapt? Sure, with a major period of adjustment. Alternative fuels, which for some reason now seem to be unavailable, would be producted. Anything using oil would be modified to utilize these new fuels. It would be years, but the West would adapt.

The South could have adapted also, but they controlled their "oil". No would would voluntarily go through a such a radical change in their society. The South was willing to secede and go to war to avoid such a change. War was better than change, but resulted in it none the less. Before anyone brings it up, I know this basically applies only to the "haves" in the South and not the "have nots". Most people in the South didn't own slaves. Unfortunately, the "haves" also tended to have the power and influence in the South.

The problem is no one that I know of on either side broached a middle ground. Some sort of middle ground had to be available that was better than a war. It probably wouldn't have satisfied the hardcore abolishionists and certainly not those enslaved, but the one million plus who died in the war would have preferred it. Peaceful emancipation probably would have helped to foster Civil Rights long before it did in this country.

Alas, it was not meant to be. The vocal minorities in both the North and the South got their wish, while the quiet major paid for it in blood.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Given the knowledge that was available of the loss and damage suffered in the War of 1812 and more especially the revolutionary war, I would argue that they already had enough History to be warned.

In theory yes, in practice evidently no. Perhaps by 1861 the memory of the earlier wars had faded; and they were in any case less damaging than the Civil War turned out to be.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
War was inevitable given the two opposing sides and the willingness of the South to resort to open warfare on a marginal issue.

For once I agree with you. It was the reckless belligerence of the South that started the war; though it was the persistence of the North that continued it for four years. The US government could have stopped the war at any time by recognizing Confederate independence, and sometimes when its resolve faltered it seemed fairly close to doing so.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
I'm going to toss out a quick question: if the South felt part of the country wasn't upholding the fugitive slave laws, how did they expect a "foreign" country to respond?

At least as part of the country, they had some recourse, even if it didn't work that well. It is highly unlikely the North would have returned any fugitive slaves to the South if it was a separate country and wouldn't let slave catchers ply their trade.

Indeed. This is just one reason (there are others) why I think slavery wouldn't have lasted long even if an independent Confederacy had survived.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
The unwillingness of many in the north to uphold the 1850 fugitives slave law concerning runaway slaves comes to mind.

I'm going to toss out a quick question: if the South felt part of the country wasn't upholding the fugitive slave laws, how did they expect a "foreign" country to respond?

I don't believe the operative motivator was how a 'foreign' country would respond but rather how things were going as is.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: lvaces

Which is where I have issue with your argument...putting it in modern terms.


Reiryc - Of course we discuss this in modern terms, we are modern men and women, how could we do otherwise?

Easily. We could learn from and understand the views of the past and apply them to the situation.

If you ask the question did the southerners of 1860 think they had the right to succeed from the Union, it is a trivial question, obviously they thought they did. All we can do if we wish to discuss it is to discuss if we (modern men and women) think they were right.

I disagree. The issue isn't so much whether or not we modern men think they were right based upon our current day outlook, but rather we can take a view based upon their understanding of the constitution, how it binds the nation together, under what conditions states ratified the constitution, and finally, do they have the right to leave.

That is not to say that we automatically judge everyone who falls short of early 21st century America ethics to be guilty and wrong. It is just to say that we have an advantage of hindsight and distance that might give us some insights not available to men of that time.

We do have hindsight, in that I agree. However, for the most part what we have, is our own modern biases in which we use to judge them.

For example, white southerners considered slavery oppression. By this I mean if you asked them if they themselves were made into slaves would they feel oppressed, they would answer yes. I don't think anyone would deny this. Yet they felt perfectly free to enslave blacks and would deny that they themselves were oppressers.

By the same token, if you asked them if they felt animals were oppressed, they probably would have answered no. This understanding, although foreign to us today, would have been more understandable back then.

So if history books from 150 years from now would help us understand our time and behavior better, why doesn't bringing in knowledge gained in the last 150 years help us understand the people of 1860 better?

I'm not convinced we do understand the people of 1860 better, but rather that we have a modern day acceptable historical line.

P.S. As others have pointed out, the problems of enforcing the Fugative Slave Law were not caused at all by the election of Lincoln, and he explicitly committed himself and his government to enforcing the law as best he could.

I don't recall saying/writing anything about the election of lincoln. I believe I was referring to those that adhered to the day to day administration of the law.

And on top of this, secession in no way solved that problem, but if successful would have made it worse. If this is the best example of Lincoln's oppression that pro-legal secessionists can come up with, I don't think it says much for the strength of that case. Better to just admit like Jonathan that they were not actually oppressed and go with the "we can leave when we want, oppressed or not" argument.

I'll go with the oppressed bit myself. It's a valid argument, but since that argument was on the losing side, we tend to downplay it's validity. It'd be no different than the taxation/representation question had we lost the revolutionary war.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: lvaces
Reiryc - Of course we discuss this in modern terms, we are modern men and women, how could we do otherwise? If you ask the question did the southerners of 1860 think they had the right to succeed from the Union, it is a trivial question, obviously they thought they did. All we can do if we wish to discuss it is to discuss if we (modern men and women) think they were right. That is not to say that we automatically judge everyone who falls short of early 21st century America ethics to be guilty and wrong. It is just to say that we have an advantage of hindsight and distance that might give us some insights not available to men of that time.

This is a tricky point. On the one hand, we instinctively feel that our own moral judgments are true for all time. On the other hand, it would be unreasonable to expect people in the 19th century to behave according to moral principles that were uncommon or nonexistent at the time.

The principle of "the consent of the governed" had been expressed to justify American secession in the 18th century, so it seems fair to me to apply it to justify American secession in the 19th century. However, the principle of votes for everyone (including black people and women) was barely getting started in the 19th century, so it seems unfair to insist on it. The principle that slavery is wrong is hard to adjudicate, because in the 19th century opinion was divided about it (in the world at large as well as in North America). To me, slavery is wrong, but I can somewhat understand that it wasn't so clear to Confederates.

ORIGINAL: lvaces
P.S. As others have pointed out, the problems of enforcing the Fugative Slave Law were not caused at all by the election of Lincoln, and he explicitly committed himself and his government to enforcing the law as best he could. And on top of this, secession in no way solved that problem, but if successful would have made it worse. If this is the best example of Lincoln's oppression that pro-legal secessionists can come up with, I don't think it says much for the strength of that case. Better to just admit like Jonathan that they were not actually oppressed and go with the "we can leave when we want, oppressed or not" argument.

I think the seceding Southerners saw Lincoln as a bogeyman and believed that he intended to oppress them (e.g. by freeing their slaves without paying compensation) even though he had not actually threatened to do so.

As you say, I wouldn't attempt to justify secession on the basis of oppression. 'Oppression' existed largely in the overactive imaginations of some southerners. (The 'oppression' by the British in the 18th century was also largely imaginary.)

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
In general, the South had to realize slavery was frowned upon the the civilized world. The problem is their economy was dependent upon it.

Although I agree with your argument, I think you've missed a further point. Southerners were also afraid that millions of freed slaves running around 'out of control' would be a social hazard. I suppose they feared murder, rape, and robbery. And this was also an understandable concern, although in practice nothing much seemed to happen when the slaves were freed after the war.

[Ironclad]

Back to right or wrong of secession:

Whilst might proved successful in eventually resolving the argument, on the principle can one make a case for a difference in legal status between those states which were the original 13 colonies and those which later joined the Union? After all the former were sovereign states in their own right (I can't recall the provisions that governed their alliance before the Union was agreed) and on that basis wouldn't they have a legal right to return to their sovereign separate status that the later states - whether created from the territories or taken over from Mexico didn't. What this would have done for Confederate unity is another matter!

[Twotribes]

The original form of Government was a Confederation ( I believe called the Articles of Confederation) Every State had the right to refuse anything , the system didnt work. Thus the call for a new form of Government and the eventual creation of the Constitution and the usurption of State power into a Federal Government.

The entire premise of the Constitution is null and void if States could just quit the Union on any whim and at their convenience. The enumerated powers in the Constitution would be worthless, since using this line of reasoning, all a State had to do is threaten to leave and if pushed actually leave. There would in fact be no majority rule, no Government by the people and no Federal authority. There would be no reason to have changed the Articles of Confederation.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Let me get this right ( again) the South left the Union because their "State" rights were violated by the election ( in a free and legal election) of a president they didnt like because he had previously stated he would ENFORCE the law of the land and make the Northern States obey the fugitive laws ( but that isnt infringing on Northern States rights at all) but secretly he was going to strip the south of slavery over night ( I must assume he would do this by Executive decree, since he didnt have the votes in the Senate and probably not in the House either)? Is that the property your talking about? Slaves?

If not be so kind as to provide us with a list of the Property Lincoln stole from the South without compensation BEFORE he was even President.

I sure as heck hope your not going to list Federal property in the States that left the Union. Seeing as how that was NOT State property anyway AND was given to the federal Government LONG before the activists in those States cooked up this garbage about how their "rights" were being stolen.

The reality is the Northern, not the Southern , States were more agrieved because they were forced against their desires ( legally because of the Constitution) to arrest and deport slaves that had run away. This in States where slavery was ILLEGAL. The Northern States had to contend with the Southern States trying to make it legal for them to kidnap blacks in their States because they didnt have a piece of paper proving they were not someones property.

The South had the Courts and the other 2 branches of the federal Government enforcing the laws from the Slave States while Northern blacks couldnt travel safely to Southern States for fear of being enslaved and sold to the highest bidder. So much for good faith and enforcement of State laws through out the land, ehh?

The North , not the South, was the place where State rights were denied by Federal action, yet suprisingly none of those States demanded to leave the Union. They drug their heals at enforcing laws that were ILLEGAL in their States but they acted when forced too by "GASP" the Federal Government.

Do go on and explain to us how the South was so agrieved by a Presidential election that they were forced to rebel due to the horrible Tryanny of actually GETTING their way in the Northern States.

Still waiting for some answers.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
The entire premise of the Constitution is null and void if States could just quit the Union on any whim and at their convenience. The enumerated powers in the Constitution would be worthless, since using this line of reasoning, all a State had to do is threaten to leave and if pushed actually leave. There would in fact be no majority rule, no Government by the people and no Federal authority. There would be no reason to have changed the Articles of Confederation.

What ought to motivate states to remain in the Union is not fear of military force, but the positive benefits of remaining in the Union. If, without the threat of force, they would be willing to leave at the drop of a hat, that suggests that Union provides little or no benefit to the states; in which case, why bother to preserve it?

I would hope that the Union does in fact provide positive benefits to the states and for that reason they would not be willing to leave it except for very strong reasons.

What sort of a country is held together only by the threat of military force? Is that the sort of country you want to live in?

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: RERomine
In general, the South had to realize slavery was frowned upon the the civilized world. The problem is their economy was dependent upon it.

Although I agree with your argument, I think you've missed a further point. Southerners were also afraid that millions of freed slaves running around 'out of control' would be a social hazard. I suppose they feared murder, rape, and robbery. And this was also an understandable concern, although in practice nothing much seemed to happen when the slaves were freed after the war.

This is more than likely correct. Although this country was built on immigration, there seemed to be fear and resent by the 'natives' when large groups of poor immigrants arrived. More than likely an unfounded fear, even an irrational fear can influence the views and actions of people.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Ironclad

Back to right or wrong of secession:

Whilst might proved successful in eventually resolving the argument, on the principle can one make a case for a difference in legal status between those states which were the original 13 colonies and those which later joined the Union? After all the former were sovereign states in their own right (I can't recall the provisions that governed their alliance before the Union was agreed) and on that basis wouldn't they have a legal right to return to their sovereign separate status that the later states - whether created from the territories or taken over from Mexico didn't. What this would have done for Confederate unity is another matter!

While there are different origins for the states involved, I don't believe the Constitution considers these differences. Once admitted to the Union, there origin seems to be forgotten. The Constitution was suppose to supercede any previous legal documents, such as the Articles of Confederation, as well. Overall, the legal status doesn't matter because people are going to rebell if they feel oppressed, even if the oppression is nothing more than a state of mind.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Still waiting for some answers.

Hey Twotribes, I responded to this. Sorry if I didn't disagree with you [:)]

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
What sort of a country is held together only by the threat of military force? Is that the sort of country you want to live in?

The Soviet Union. It was a workers' paradise [:D]

[Texican]

Though "states rights" and "right to secede" frequently come up in these kinds of degates, I will say one thing -- without the issue of slavery, there would have been no Civil War. Secession? Why? No reason for South to secede if slavery had not existed nor been a contentious issue.

So, this whole thing is really not about states rights, except to use this as a more palatable topping to cover the real issue which was slavery.

Now some will argue that the Southern economy depended upon slavery, but I will counter that slavery is a poor economic means (slaves don't earn wages, therefore cannot spend), and that the South's economy was blunted by the very reason that it had slavery.

Think of all the farmhand jobs that did not exist because they were occupied by slaves. What did a southern worker do if he did not own his own business or farm? I can only guess that finding work in the South was very difficult. The abolition of slavery may have been the best thing to happen to the South economically.

But back to the main question. Do states have the right to secede? Maybe. Do other states and nations have the right to quash a state that fosters slavery? Heck, it can be argued they have a duty.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

The original form of Government was a Confederation ( I believe called the Articles of Confederation) Every State had the right to refuse anything , the system didnt work.

The system worked for what it was designed to do. There were those who sought a more 'positive' or 'energetic' acting federal government and thus the constitution was born. However, it wasn't desired by everyone and not every state jumped at the chance to ratify the constitution.

The entire premise of the Constitution is null and void if States could just quit the Union on any whim and at their convenience.

It doesn't make the constitution null and void what-so-ever. If a state wants to quit the union at their convenience, that is their right to do so. The constitution was passed by the states ratifying it for their benefit. If the constitution is no longer a matter of benefit, then they should form a government to their own ends that is.

"the true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best . . . (for) when all government . . . shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as . . . oppressive as the government from which we separated."--Thomas Jefferson

RESOLVED: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers:
That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.-- Thomas Jefferson, 1799

The enumerated powers in the Constitution would be worthless, since using this line of reasoning, all a State had to do is threaten to leave and if pushed actually leave.

How does that make the enumerated powers worthless? Those that stay in the union will abide by such laws made under such powers.

There would in fact be no majority rule, no Government by the people and no Federal authority.

Sure there would. This is a bit over-dramatic to say the least.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Texican
Though "states rights" and "right to secede" frequently come up in these kinds of debates, I will say one thing -- without the issue of slavery, there would have been no Civil War. Secession? Why? No reason for South to secede if slavery had not existed nor been a contentious issue.

So, this whole thing is really not about states rights, except to use this as a more palatable topping to cover the real issue which was slavery.

I agree that the main issue leading to secession in 1861 was slavery, but slavery is a dead issue now: no-one believes in it. If people get worked about the issue of secession now -- as they apparently do -- it's clearly not because of slavery.

As far as I know, no part of the modern USA wants to secede, so it's mainly an issue of principle for Americans (though they still seem keen to discuss it!); but it's a real, live, political issue in some other countries today.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

The original form of Government was a Confederation ( I believe called the Articles of Confederation) Every State had the right to refuse anything , the system didnt work.

The system worked for what it was designed to do. There were those who sought a more 'positive' or 'energetic' acting federal government and thus the constitution was born. However, it wasn't desired by everyone and not every state jumped at the chance to ratify the constitution.

The entire premise of the Constitution is null and void if States could just quit the Union on any whim and at their convenience.

It doesn't make the constitution null and void what-so-ever. If a state wants to quit the union at their convenience, that is their right to do so. The constitution was passed by the states ratifying it for their benefit. If the constitution is no longer a matter of benefit, then they should form a government to their own ends that is.

"the true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best . . . (for) when all government . . . shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as . . . oppressive as the government from which we separated."--Thomas Jefferson

RESOLVED: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers:
That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.-- Thomas Jefferson, 1799

The enumerated powers in the Constitution would be worthless, since using this line of reasoning, all a State had to do is threaten to leave and if pushed actually leave.

How does that make the enumerated powers worthless? Those that stay in the union will abide by such laws made under such powers.

There would in fact be no majority rule, no Government by the people and no Federal authority.

Sure there would. This is a bit over-dramatic to say the least.

Still waiting for an answer to your claim the Union under Lincoln siezed State "property" and refused to pay for it. And what Tyranny the Union practiced against the Southern States when in fact the Union FORCED the Northern States to obey southern laws, not the other way round.

Lincoln wasnt even president when the States began to leave the Union. He had PUBLICLY proclaimed he had NO interest in changing any law or rule concerning slavery in the South. The South had no reason other than idiocy to leave the Union. And once they left they had NO reason to attack the Union, but guess what? They attacked anyway.

The premise that the States can, on a whim, simply leave the Union was ridicolous even in 1861. Thats why the South tried so hard to dress up the excuses as somekind of tyranny forced on them by the North. The reality being that the Federal Government was enforceing Southern laws and values on the North, NOT the other way round.

People will obviously revolt if enough feel agrieved, just pointing out that doesnt somehow equate to they had the Constitutional right to do so.

As for Jonathans continued claim that one shouldnt rule by force or impose Union by force... The US is not a despotic country and does not have any great number of citizens desiring to leave nor overthrow the government, AND after the Civil ar had little trouble reintergrating the Southern States and their citizens back into the fold.

But the issue of force... YES as a matter of fact EVERY government rules by force, of somekind or another. In our case we rule by Representation of the people, with the majority having the power to make and eliminate laws ( though the Constitution places a few restrictions on that power) But it is Force that keeps every country together. Friendly feelings and no laws only work if at all in very small communities. The Government not only has force BUT is required to use it to ensure the welfare and safety of all.

Humans dont get along cause we are lambs and pacifists. It is Government force in EVERY law and every edict at every government level. The only "Governments" that dont use force are the ones that dont exsist anymore. Why? Cause someone willing TO use force eliminated them.

Force is not a bad thing in and of itself, only if used IN a bad way.

Individuals do not have the inherient right to impose their will, morals or "laws" on others ( except their underage children) BUT Governments MUST do JUST that.