Secession, right or wrong?

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Incidentally, I toss in without comment part of the introduction to Alexander's Military Memoirs of a Confederate:

As to the causes of the war, it will, of course, be understood that every former Confederate repudiates all accusations of treason or rebellion in the war, and even of fighting to preserve the institution of slavery. The effort of the enemy to destroy it without compensation was practical robbery, which, of course, we resisted. The unanimity and the desperation of our resistance -- even to the refusal of Lincoln's suggested compensation at Fortress Monroe, after the destruction had already occurred -- clearly show our struggle to have been for that right of self-government which the Englishman has claimed, and fought for, as for nothing else, since the days of King John.

Well, that's certainly an unbiased source! [:D]

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Remember that the war was fought by Abraham Lincoln's volunteers rather than the regular Army so the southern states were actually entitled to petition the Federal Government under Article 4 section 4 to use the USA regular army to "... protect each of them against invasion;" Wouldn't you hate to be the Federal Judge needing to rule on that point of law ?

No, because that's utter poohbah. Just because they were volunteers didn't mean that they weren't an official arm of the federal government under it's direct control.

What about this part of the Constitution under the section about the powers of Congress:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Grifman

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Remember that the war was fought by Abraham Lincoln's volunteers rather than the regular Army so the southern states were actually entitled to petition the Federal Government under Article 4 section 4 to use the USA regular army to "... protect each of them against invasion;" Wouldn't you hate to be the Federal Judge needing to rule on that point of law ?

No, because that's utter poohbah. Just because they were volunteers didn't mean that they weren't an official arm of the federal government under it's direct control.

I don't deny that Lincoln's volunteers were acting under his orders. My point is that under the constitution North Carolina had a right to call for protection against invasion. They chose not to since they considered themselves to have left the Union and thereby had no recourse to the resources of the Federal government, but you can't deny that the sovereign state of North Carolina was invaded by a military force intent on subduing the lawful government of that state. The fact that the invading force was the personal army of the President is beside the point [:D] It's a minor point but quite amusing for those of us with an interest in legal conundrums.

What about this part of the Constitution under the section about the powers of Congress:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

[/quote]
What about it? I don't deny that Lincoln had a right to raise militia. I just question whether he had the right to use it to invade North Carolina.

[Twotribes]

Of course the section in the Constitution that mentions insurrection has no bearing on this, right?

If a local or State Government can simply leave the Union any time it felt like, what exactly was insurrection and why mention it at all in the Constitution?

Once again JUSt for the claim the "volunteers" were somehow a private army, I suggest you actually READ the Constitution. The President has the power to call for volunteers and they become PART of the United States Army while active. Further more Lincoln didnt just wake up one morning, slap his head and think " damn I need an army" The Southern States were in rebellion ( that pesky insurrection thing again) had attacked Federal Forts, siezed federal property and raised Armys, created a navy and made illegal association as well as practice foreign diplomacy, all disallowed by the Constitution.

The so called "invasion" was no more than the US Government attempting to put down an INSURRECTION, clearly covered in the Constitution. And further more, since the Governor of the State of North Carolina was in fact aiding and abetting such insurrection, the President no longer needs his permission to put down said Insurrection.

The Consttution is clear, it talks about enemies both "Foreign and Domestic".

Further, as to the arguement that a State could simply leave the Union any time it pleased, why have a clause about Insurrection at all? Why mention "domestic" enemies? Why have a central government that superceded State Governments at all, if a State could simply withdraw at any time a Majority disagreed with it?

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
What about it? I don't deny that Lincoln had a right to raise militia. I just question whether he had the right to use it to invade North Carolina.

North Carolina was only invaded if they were in rebellion. Ohio didn't complain about being invaded. Lincoln had troops there from other states. As President, he could send troops where ever he needed to in the United States. Sounds like my kid saying I have NO RIGHT to go into his room, even though I OWN THE HOUSE!

I'm going to expand on this as I've had more time to research. The blockade declared on April 19, 1861 applied only to those states that had seceded before Ft. Sumter:

Proclamation of Blockade Against Southern Ports

Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein comformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States: And whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection, have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, and in waters of the United States: And whereas an Executive Proclamation has been already issued, requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session, to deliberate and determine thereon: Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection of the public peace, and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the same shall ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and of the law of Nations, in such case provided. For this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach, or shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the Commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will endorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port, for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize, as may be deemed advisable. And I hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the pretended authority of the said States, or under any other pretense, shall molest a vessel of the United States, or the persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention and punishment of piracy. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this nineteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.

Don't see one thing in there about North Carolina.

On April 20, 1861, North Carolina siezed the Federal mint in Charlotte.

On April 22, 1861, North Caroline siezed the Federal arsenal at Fayetteville.

Doesn't matter one bit that they didn't seceded until May. They were in active rebellion against the United States.

[keystone]

All this talk is just splitting hairs and belongs in a poli-sci class. The real story is that the South is an occupied territory and we will reclaim it eventually, we are just waiting for the pathethically pc idiots in DC to screw things up enough.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: keystone
All this talk is just splitting hairs

I agree. Sometimes there's a weird fascination in splitting hairs. But the real issue goes back to the US declaration of independence: that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: keystone
All this talk is just splitting hairs

I agree. Sometimes there's a weird fascination in splitting hairs. But the real issue goes back to the US declaration of independence: that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Yet somehow in 1860-61, when the people of 11 States decided that they no longer consented, they had "just powers" shoved down their throats on the tip of a bayonet. "Just" or "unjust", it is the POWER that matters.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Vyshka

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

As far as I know, tax rates in Britain's American colonies were very low and remained very low. The colonists objected even to the very low taxes they were asked to pay. And arguably, without representation, they were entitled to object; but I don't think it's right to say that the taxes were ever high.

I believe that was the case until the end of the 7 years war. At that point Britain began to levy much higher taxes to pay off the debt accumulated in the war, and they felt the colonies should foot the bill since they had to come to their aid. The higher tax rates combined with lack of representation were sources of great friction.

I've tried to check up on this, but it seems hard to find out details of the actual tax burden in percentage terms. As far as I can tell, Britain indeed wanted to raise the very low taxes, but never managed to do so; and the colonists were objecting above all to the principle of taxation rather than to the amount of it. I quote from Niall Ferguson's book Empire (2003). I don't claim it's an unbiased source, but he's a professional historian and presumably checked his facts more carefully than I can.

Schoolchildren and tourists are still taught the story of the American Revolution primarily in terms of economic burdens. In London, the argument runs, the government wanted some recompense for the cost of expelling the French from North America in the Seven Years War, and of maintaining a 10,000-strong standing army to police the disgruntled Indians beyond the Appalachian mountains, who had tended to side with the French. The upshot was new taxes. On close inspection, however, the real story is one of taxes repealed, not taxes imposed.

In 1765 Parliament passed the Stamp Act ... The projected revenue was not immense: £110,000, nearly half of it coming from the West Indies. But the tax proved so unpopular that that the minister who introduced it, George Grenville, was forced to resign and by March the following year it had been scrapped. From now on, it was accepted, the Empire would tax only external trade, not internal transactions. Two years later, a new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Townshend, tried again, this time with a range of new customs duties. In the hope of sweetening the pill, the duty on one of the most popular articles of colonial consumption, tea, was actually cut from one shilling to threepence per pound. It was no good. Samuel Adams drafted a circular for the Massachusetts Assembly calling for resistance to even these taxes. In January 1770 a new government in Britain, under the famously unprepossessing Lord North, lifted all the new duties except the one on tea. Still the protests in Boston continued.

Everyone has heard of the 'Boston Tea Party' of 16 December 1773, in which 342 boxes of tea worth £10,000 were tipped from the East India tea ship Dartmouth into the murky waters of Boston harbour. But most people assume it was a protest against a hike in the tax on tea. In fact the price of the tea in question was exceptionally low ... The 'Party' was organized not by irate consumers but by Boston's wealthy smugglers, who stood to lose out ...

On close inspection, then, the taxes that caused so much fuss were not just trifling; by 1773 they had all but gone ... It was the constitutional principle -- the right of the British parliament to levy taxes on the American colonists without their consent -- that was the true bone of contention.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Yet somehow in 1860-61, when the people of 11 States decided that they no longer consented, they had "just powers" shoved down their throats on the tip of a bayonet. "Just" or "unjust", it is the POWER that matters.

To be sure. But to claim that they were wrong to secede is just adding insult to injury. Perhaps they were unwise to secede, in the circumstances; certainly they were unwise to accept war so happily; but that's a different matter.

If a man points a gun at you and demands your money, to refuse is probably unwise, but it's not immoral or even illegal.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
the South would have seceded when the did, even if the Constitution had spell out in bold letters Secession Is Illegal.

Probably but not definitely true. I think there was a fair amount of respect for the Constitution in the Confederacy -- which copied it into its own Constitution.

However, in general I agree that these legal arguments are a bit futile, because if the mass of people in a region want to secede and feel that they can get away with doing so, mere law is unlikely to stop them. It is, after all, the law of a country that they no longer want to belong to.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Grifman

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Incidentally, I toss in without comment part of the introduction to Alexander's Military Memoirs of a Confederate:

As to the causes of the war, it will, of course, be understood that every former Confederate repudiates all accusations of treason or rebellion in the war, and even of fighting to preserve the institution of slavery. The effort of the enemy to destroy it without compensation was practical robbery, which, of course, we resisted. The unanimity and the desperation of our resistance -- even to the refusal of Lincoln's suggested compensation at Fortress Monroe, after the destruction had already occurred -- clearly show our struggle to have been for that right of self-government which the Englishman has claimed, and fought for, as for nothing else, since the days of King John.

Well, that's certainly an unbiased source! [:D]

I quoted Alexander to show how the situation appeared from a Confederate point of view. I'm not sure where you might find an 'unbiased source' on this subject. As a foreigner, I might claim to be unbiased myself, but like anyone else in the world I have my own opinions about issues of principle. Does that make me biased? Maybe. If so, you'll have to search for someone without opinions. Good luck!

[Greyshaft]

Of course the section in the Constitution that mentions insurrection has no bearing on this, right?

Absolutely right! The word ‘insurrection’ is mentioned only once in the constitution in Article I section 8, which gives the Congress power “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;” Since the word insurrection is not further defined within the constitution then we have to look at other sources to get the definition of the word.

If a local or State Government can simply leave the Union any time it felt like, what exactly was insurrection and why mention it at all in the Constitution?

The insurrection clause was planned to meet issues such as the Whisky Rebellion of 1794. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion.

Once again JUSt for the claim the "volunteers" were somehow a private army, I suggest you actually READ the Constitution.

No need to get nasty about it. I have read the US constitution … as well as completing a degree in law and writing a novel hinging on exactly this point of law, so I’m at on reasonably well-researched ground in what I’m saying.

The Southern States were in rebellion ( that pesky insurrection thing again) had attacked Federal Forts, siezed federal property and raised Armys, created a navy and made illegal association as well as practice foreign diplomacy, all disallowed by the Constitution.

I’m not arguing with the gist of what you’re saying. The southern states made it quite clear that they were getting out of the union and did not consider themselves bound by the rules of that organization. They prepared for war and since they considered themselves out of the Union then they saw nothing wrong in what they were doing. My point is that SOME of Lincoln’s actions in meeting this challenge fall within the technical definition of Treason. Look at it this way - If a policeman runs diagonally across a road to catch a criminal then he is guilty of jaywalking regardless of his motives. If a President makes war on a state then he is guilty of treason regardless of his motives. You may say that the end justified the means in both cases but that is a moral or political argument. From a legal viewpoint the policeman and President are both guilty of their respective crimes.

The so called "invasion" was no more than the US Government attempting to put down an INSURRECTION, clearly covered in the Constitution.

Clearly covered? I think not! I find only one clause mentioning ‘insurrection’ and it doesn’t even define the word. The topic is only vaguely covered in the constitution and that was the whole problem. Likewise the word ‘rebellion’ is only mentioned once and the only power the President can claim in those circumstances is to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

And further more, since the Governor of the State of North Carolina was in fact aiding and abetting such insurrection, the President no longer needs his permission to put down said Insurrection.

What the …!!! Where does the constitution say that??? Article 4 section 4 does not provide any conditions under which the President can bypass the states (see below)

The Consttution is clear, it talks about enemies both "Foreign and Domestic".

OK… here it is again… Article IV Section 4… The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

In the case of domestic violence the constitution clearly requires a request from the state in question. Since the southern states never made that request then Lincoln could not use that Article as his authority to invade the southern states.

ReRomine... I suggest you keep researching... try reading this
Whereas, for the reasons assigned in my proclamation of the 19th instant, a blockade of the ports of the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, was ordered to be established; and, whereas, since that date public property of the United States has been seized, the collection of the revenue obstructed, and duly commissioned officers of the United States, while engaged in executing the orders of their superiors, have been arrested and held in custody as prisoners, or have been impeded in the discharge of their official duties without due legal process by persons claiming to act under authority of the States of Virginia and North Carolina, an efficient blockade of the ports of those States will therefore also be established.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this twenty-seventh day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.

So in early 1861 we have domestic violence in North Carolina but no request from the state for the Federal government to intervene in that violence.
On April 27th 1861 Lincoln extends the blockade to North Carolina... lets stop right there for a second. Lincoln has blockaded a member state of the Union. Blockade is an act of war. Lincoln has therefore committed an act of war against a Union state and according to Article III section 3 "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort..."

Therefore on April 27th 1861 Lincoln committed Treason and North Carolina secceeded a couple of weeks after that.

I'm not saying Lincoln was right or wrong in what he did - I'm just observing that he committed Treason along the way

[Twotribes]

Your wrong. Your opinion is simply incorrect. As the President he had the responsibility to Protect federal property and ensure all the powers and duties of the Federal Government were enforced. Using your cliam all it would take is for the Governor of a State to suspend all payments to the US and have the legislature pass laws suoercedeing the laws of the Federal Government on taxation , duties and raising armies and navies. Then according to you, since said Governor would NOT ask for the Federal Government to intervene the Federal Government would have NO recourse. They could not act because of your claim that they would be invading, since the rebelling Governor, State Legislature and or people didnt ask them to intervene. That is simply a ridiculous claim ON ITS FACE.

Then we have your claim that the "volunteers" were somehow a private army of the President. The President has the power to call forth the Militia, said Militia becoming part of the Federal Army while active.

The meaning of rebellion and the meaning of Insurrection are clear, your legalistic attempt to muddy the water notwithstanding.

[Twotribes]

I must assume from your stance here that when the National Guard was deployed into Southern States ( was it 50's or early 60's?) in an effort to enforce the rulings of the Supreme Court on segregation in definace of the Governor and legislature of those States that this too was Treason and illegal.

What exactly was your stance on The Governor of Luiasiana when she claimed after katrina that, even though she had NOT authorized the Federal Government to deploy or use Military assets in her State, that it was the Federal Governments fault for NOT doing exactly that before she asked or permitted them to do so?

As to the specifics on the Civil War, North Carolina had , with the help and permission of the Governor and the legislature siezed illegally Federal property, using your excuse the Federal Government had NO recourse since to act would be an "act of Treason"

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft


Therefore on April 27th 1861 Lincoln committed Treason and North Carolina secceeded a couple of weeks after that.

I'm not saying Lincoln was right or wrong in what he did - I'm just observing that he committed Treason along the way

As previously pointed out, North Carolina started siezing Federal property April 20th. Secession was the formalization of their "departure" from the Union. They were in active rebellion prior to seceding.

Seems to me here in the States, we had a shooting war with England well before the formal Declaration of Indepenence was approved and signed in 1776. Over a year before, in fact. Does anyone believe the whole rebellion against England wasn't real until July 4, 1776? That's when we formally declared our independence.

[Twotribes]

We have an example of an "Invasion" by the federal Government 4 years before the Civil War. President Buchanan ordered the Army to "invade" and supress the "rebelling" Mormons in Utah Territory in 1857. His excuse being that he had appointed a new Governor of said territory and the Old Governor failed to relinquish his post.

Of course the reality is that Buchanan NEVER told Brigham Young he had been replaced and the New Governor was accompanied by this "Invasion" Force. The Mormons only discovered the exsistance of a New Governor and an Army coming to put down their "insurrection" because a member of the Church happened to in the East, learned of it and sent word.

Utah at the time was probably as close to 100 percent Mormon as it ever was. What exactly were the Southern States position on the actions of Buchanan ( a Southern President)in his actions against this "rebelling" territory? I mean 4 years later they made the claim that since the Majority of the States population wished to withdraw that made it legal. Seems they would have supported Utah against the Federal Government?

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

We have an example of an "Invasion" by the federal Government 4 years before the Civil War. President Buchanan ordered the Army to "invade" and supress the "rebelling" Mormons in Utah Territory in 1857. His excuse being that he had appointed a new Governor of said territory and the Old Governor failed to relinquish his post.

Of course the reality is that Buchanan NEVER told Brigham Young he had been replaced and the New Governor was accompanied by this "Invasion" Force. The Mormons only discovered the exsistance of a New Governor and an Army coming to put down their "insurrection" because a member of the Church happened to in the East, learned of it and sent word.

Utah at the time was probably as close to 100 percent Mormon as it ever was. What exactly were the Southern States position on the actions of Buchanan ( a Southern President)in his actions against this "rebelling" territory? I mean 4 years later they made the claim that since the Majority of the States population wished to withdraw that made it legal. Seems they would have supported Utah against the Federal Government?

Seems to me it is more legal for Utah to secede because it was, at the time, a territory and not a state and thus not legally bound by the U.S. Constitution. The same would apply to Puerto Rico today, which also isn't bound by any legal documentation.

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

We have an example of an "Invasion" by the federal Government 4 years before the Civil War. President Buchanan ordered the Army to "invade" and supress the "rebelling" Mormons in Utah Territory in 1857. His excuse being that he had appointed a new Governor of said territory and the Old Governor failed to relinquish his post.

Of course the reality is that Buchanan NEVER told Brigham Young he had been replaced and the New Governor was accompanied by this "Invasion" Force. The Mormons only discovered the exsistance of a New Governor and an Army coming to put down their "insurrection" because a member of the Church happened to in the East, learned of it and sent word.

Utah at the time was probably as close to 100 percent Mormon as it ever was. What exactly were the Southern States position on the actions of Buchanan ( a Southern President)in his actions against this "rebelling" territory? I mean 4 years later they made the claim that since the Majority of the States population wished to withdraw that made it legal. Seems they would have supported Utah against the Federal Government?

That might have been more likely had the Mormons not been universally despised by both Northerers and Southerners.

[Twotribes]

Ahh, I see, so THAT makes it different?