Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Secession, right or wrong?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Secession, right or wrong? Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 1:52:18 AM   
Reiryc

 

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc


quote:

ORIGINAL: lvaces

Reiyrc - Jefferson is saying that people who are being oppressed have the right to rebel. I, and most people, would agree. This does not mean that anybody has the right to rebel just because of an election result they do not like (otherwise no democracy could ever exist).


He is saying that people who feel they are living under tyranny have the right to form a new government. The question is, what constitutes tyranny? Would the unjust loss of property constitute a reason? I would argue that he would think so.

quote:


You point out to me the oppression that Lincoln as President was going to place on the south and then your Jefferson quote from the Declaration of Independence becomes applicable.


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

quote:


Otherwise it is not. The only real oppression in the Jefferson meaning being done here is by white southerners against their slaves. So what your quote actually proves is that the slaves had a right to rebel, not the white southerners.



No, it shows that the south had a right to rebel.



You didnt write this? Exactly what property was unjustly removed, stolen or taken?


Yes, I wrote that...

The property that was unjustly lost was a slave that was not returned contrary to laws that protect property.

_____________________________


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 211
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 2:04:28 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

LOL the South WAS treated in a friendly manner and the response was THEY attacked the North.


1] Go home. Sorry you got stationed here in the South.

2] Reread history. Being the only South Carolinian in this fight so far and having a class in state history, you are in error. We Seceeded on Dec 20, 1860, claiming all land in our borders and territorial seas to 3 miles, which included Fort Sumter. Mj. Anderson was camped in Fort Moultrie at the time (also claimed by us). He loaded into boats and invaded the empty Fort Sumter expecting to establish a foothold for the capture of Charleston or at the least a way to be evacuated by a rescuing party despite having been offered free passage out of the state. So despite Union revisionist history, Mj. Anderson actually invaded South Carolina territory from South Carolina territory that he illegally occupied after being granted honors of war.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 212
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 2:35:15 AM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline
Correction: Ft. Sumter was not "empty" when Major Anderson transferred his command in late December 1860; a small party of US engineers was at Sumter busily engaged on construction work since at least October of that year (acting very much like they owned the place, I might add).

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 213
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 2:46:16 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
South Carolina didnt OWN the forts, they were Federal property. They were NOT State property. Using your logic we are back to Virginia demanding Washington DC back , Virginia and North Carolina demanding the states west of them back ( the territory oroiginal was part of those States. ect ect.

I am not "stationed" in the south. I chose to LIVE in North Carolina and have done so since 1993. Is it now your opinion that only those that agreee with you are allowed to live where ever it is you decide they can?

As to the previous claim about unreturned property, be so kind as to provide evidence that captured escaping slaves wer NOT returned as required by law.... Furthermore reread the Constitution, why were Southern laws more important than Northern laws? The Constitution requires all States to honor the laws of all other States. In the North it was ILLEGAL ( you know AGAINST the law) to own slaves.

The entire premise of the Souths reason to leave the UNION was bull, the Federal Government was forcing the Northern States to obey Souther States laws. President Lincoln had announced publicly he had NO intention of trying to change that.

If the justification for land ownershup is simply that someone CLAIMS it, then ownership will become that of the most powerful entity, the one that can enforce its will on anyone that sits legally or not on land they want.

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 214
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 3:51:19 AM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

Be so kind as to show us ANY amendment proposal for the Constitution that included the language that the States could leave anytime they wanted?


Twotribes, you continually attempt to phrase the argument such that since the constitution did not explicitly permit secession then it must be illegal. However the boot is actually on the other foot. All rights are presumed to belong to the states unless they are explicitly ceded in the constitution. This rule is actually spelt out in Amendment Ten ie:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Therefore since the constitution does not discuss the right of secession then that right was never given up by the states. End of story from a legal point of view.

quote:

LOL the South WAS treated in a friendly manner and the response was THEY attacked the North.
This is the crux of your argument. Since the southern states behaved in a manner of which you do not approve then you feel the Federal Government had no obligation to recognize their legal rights.

quote:

The aggressor here, notwithstanding the revisionist claims, was the South. The South not the North resorted to armed conflict. All Lincoln did is respond.
And in the process of responding he technically committed Treason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ivaces
Greyshaft - Let me ask you this, if the question before the house was "The Holocaust - right or wrong?" would you be satisfied by saying, well according to the laws of Germany in place in 1944 it was legal, so who are we to come around later and say it was wrong?
What a stupid and insulting analogy!!! I have pointed out on many occasions that I am discussing the law and NOT morality. We have Twotribes wrapping himself in the US Flag and declaring that because Lincoln was 'defending the Union' he was entitled to ignore the constitution and it is that approach which I am opposing. The morality of secession is a completely different issue.

Now we have your rather pointless jibe equating the Southern States with Nazi Germany and suggesting that my refusal to discuss morality of the secession issue puts me in the same category as an apologist for the Holocaust. I won't bother asking you for a retraction. Your analogy is so baseless that it collapses of its own accord. However in order to terminate that rather futile line of discussion I'll make it very clear for you.

  • From a legal point of view I believe that the southern states had the right to secede.
  • I have made no statement regarding whether they had a moral right to do so.
  • From a legal point of view I do not know whether the government of Nazi Germany gave themselves the right to exterminate the jews. I haven't studied their laws.
  • From a moral point of view I state that regardless of whether the Nazis were operating within a legal framework or not, their actions are morally inexcusable. I personally abhor the Holocaust and I believe that sentiment is shared by the overwhelming majority of people in this Forum.
Now can we get back to 1861?



_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 215
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 4:44:59 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
"South Carolina didnt OWN the forts, they were Federal property. They were NOT State property. Using your logic we are back to Virginia demanding Washington DC back , Virginia and North Carolina demanding the states west of them back ( the territory oroiginal was part of those States. ect ect."


Couple of points. First, Washington DC is built on the Maryland side of the Potomac, and Maryland didn't succede. So your example is baseless and silly. And the Forts were "Federal Property" of a "federation" that no longer included the South after succession. As they were built on land originally given to the "federation" by the Southern States, and using tax money provided by the Southern States; there is a solid legal basis for assuming they would "revert" to the States when they left the "federation" (Union). The Northern case is weak because they voluntarily abandoned most of them without a struggle (or a formal surrender). The Confederacy was making no claim on any "federal property" except that which was built on land they had provided.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 216
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 5:18:44 AM   
Sarge


Posts: 2841
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: ask doggie
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

Be so kind as to show us ANY amendment proposal for the Constitution that included the language that the States could leave anytime they wanted?

{SNIP}
Twotribes, you continually attempt to phrase the argument such that since the constitution did not explicitly permit secession then it must be illegal. However the boot is actually on the other foot. All rights are presumed to belong to the states unless they are explicitly ceded in the constitution. This rule is actually spelt out in Amendment Ten ie:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Therefore since the constitution does not discuss the right of secession then that right was never given up by the states. End of story from a legal point of view.
{SNIP}


BULLSEYE



< Message edited by Sarge -- 11/27/2006 5:24:36 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 217
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 5:35:28 AM   
lvaces

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Now we have your rather pointless jibe equating the Southern States with Nazi Germany and suggesting that my refusal to discuss morality of the secession issue puts me in the same category as an apologist for the Holocaust


Greyshaft - The point of the analogy is not that the South is like Nazi Germany (notice in no way does the question equate any part, person, or action of the south to Germany).  It is that something can be wrong without being illegal.  What is the title of the thread, is it "Secession, right or wrong?" or "Secession, legal or illegal?" Jonathan's opening post setting up the thread makes clear he is not talking only about legality (and in fact he specifically posted he approved of my question).  The question could have been asked exactly the same if the thread was "Vietnam War, right or wrong?" to someone who only wanted to talk about the legalities of the war and not its historical results or moral components (or have I sinned by now comparing the United States to Nazi Germany?). 

You want to only talk about the legalities, fine; but you do understand that to most people something can be wrong without being illegal?  The internal actions of Nazi Germany are the strongest example of this in history, so I pick them to illustrate this point.  You call the actions of Nazi Germany morally inexcusable.  You don't think that by the normal meaning of the word "wrong" almost everybody would then go ahead and also call them wrong?  But if you want a weaker analogy, fine here it is.  In a country where heroin is legal, a friend asks if him trying it would be right or wrong.  Even if it is legal, I would have no trouble telling him it is wrong and would not in anyway think I was misusing the word "wrong" in saying so.  I doubt if you would have trouble doing so either.  So why suddenly here are the practical results or moral components suddenly off the table and only the legality of the action matters?

I add that if anyone considers that my post was an attempt to say the south was like Hitler's Germany rather than just a strong attempt to show morality matters for "wrongness", let me state plainly that was not my intention or my feelings and certainly I retract it if I wrote my post in such an inartful manner to as to legitimately give that impression.  After all if I did consider that was true, I would have to throw away my Robert E. Lee t-shirt and I would hate to do that, him being a personal hero of mine.  I also add that of course I do not consider Greyshaft "in the same category as an apoligist for the holocaust".  If I did I assure you I would not bother asking him questions.  I was just trying to illustrate to him that morality is a part of what we usually call right or wrong, and hoping to get him to say something about the historical/practical/moral issues separate from the legal issues.  I actually thought he probably has some interesting and informative insights on those.  Needless to say, since he does not feel like sharing, I withdraw the attempt.   

< Message edited by lvaces -- 11/27/2006 7:46:36 AM >

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 218
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 5:48:59 AM   
Tophat1815

 

Posts: 1824
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Secession,right or wrong?

To answer the question,well it was wrong.

Why?

Because like it or not a war was fought over this issue,the South LOST. And a way of life died along with it. Atleast a large group of people were freed and became citizens,even if many were not economically better off.
Legally the south may have had the right to leave the Union,but trial by combat didn't uphold that verdict.

(in reply to Sarge)
Post #: 219
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 6:37:13 AM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Let's consider two possible cases:

1. The US government was willing to consider letting the Confederates secede up to Fort Sumter. In this case, it should have realized that it would lose outposts such as Fort Sumter, and it should have appreciated that keeping soldiers in such outposts would be seen as an aggressive provocation. Cuba aside, countries don't normally tolerate foreign military outposts in their own territory.

2. The US government never had any intention of letting the Confederates secede. In this case, Fort Sumter was irrelevant: war was inevitable whatever the Confederates did (short of recanting their secessionist heresy).

Having said that, I do agree (and I've said before) that the Confederates played it all wrong and should have been impeccably peaceful for as long as possible. I suppose the best excuse for the war is indeed that the Confederates weren't easy people to be friendly with at the time; and indeed that helps to explain why the northern soldiers were willing to fight.


It's difficult to speculate what Lincoln would have done had the South played nice. As you say, war may have been inevitable. Both sides went into the war with too much enthusiasm. At least the North would have had a less tangible banner to rally around if Ft. Sumter hadn't been fired on. That is starting to get more moves down the hypothetical path than I can rationally provide arguments for.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 220
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 6:46:59 AM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know Lee's views on secession? It was well known that he couldn't fight against Virginia and would defend it, but he may not have agreed with secession in principle. I've read where he defended those Southerners who remained with the Union, such as Winfield Scott and George H. Thomas.

I got to thinking of this when Ivaces made references to dispensing of personal posessions with Robert E. Lee's picture on it. Personally, I have his picture on my wall. He was a great military leader. I also consider Erwin Rommel to fit in this category. Not everyone who served in the German military during WWII were die hard Nazis. I suspect most were not.

This is not a bait or a taunt, but a straight forward question for information. Please don't read more into the question than is there.

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 221
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 8:55:10 AM   
lvaces

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know Lee's views on secession? It was well known that he couldn't fight against Virginia and would defend it, but he may not have agreed with secession in principle.


Here is what seems to be the longest and most thought out of Lee's thoughts on secession.  The following quote is from a letter he wrote on Jan 23, 1861.  The source is Douglas Southall Freeman's famous biography of Lee and it can be accessed on the internet at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/24*.html

"The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression, and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private gain. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a recourse to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution." 

People can make of this what they will.  To me the two most striking things are first how strongly Lee slaps down the "the constitution is just a compact that states can leave at will" theory that some have argued so strongly for here.  Of course the compact theory could still be right, Lee is no lawyer, and even if he was he could still be wrong; but it is still interesting that the pro-secession posts saying the Constitution in no way implies the Union is perpetual are flying against Lee's direct statement. 

The second is that I think a fair reading of the document puts Lee on the Secession is wrong side of the thread heading.  Isn't the letter basically saying that yes, the south has been aggrieved (I believe the aggrievements he is referring to are the banning of slavery in the territories and the lax enforcement of the fugitive slave act), but that so far the level of aggrievement does not rise to what is necessary to satisfy secession.  For those of us who have been arguing that only significant unconstitutional federal government oppression of southern rights would have legally and politically justified secession and that this had not happed yet so secession was wrong, it is comforting to have Robert E. Lee on our side.  Or am I reading the letter wrong?         

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 222
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 11:05:46 AM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lvaces
Greyshaft - The point of the analogy is ... that something can be wrong without being illegal.

Agreed, and something can be illegal without being wrong. This occurs because our sense of 'right' and 'wrong' is a subjective moral sense instilled in us by our culture while the concept of 'legal' and 'illegal' are objective measurements judged by the prevailing legal system of the time.

Whether a person's actions are illegal is a question of legal interpretation and there is no room for morality in that interpretation. However there are times where you and I and the world at large will support the illegal actions of an individual because we see those actions as obeying a higher calling i.e. morality.

So...

  • Mahatma Ghandi's civil disobedience in South Africa and India was most certainly illegal however I do not condemn his actions.
  • Likewise the few German's in the 1930's who spoke out against the Holocaust were breaking the local German laws however I do not condemn their actions.
  • Abraham Lincoln broke the law in the 1860's during his campaign to reunite the seceding states and I HAVE MADE NO COMMENT ON THE MORALITY OF HIS ACTIONS. (The capitals are for emphasis - I'm not meaning to shout at you.)
My argument is with those who say that Abraham Lincoln didn't break the law.

quote:

So why suddenly here are the practical results or moral components suddenly off the table and only the legality of the action matters?
Both concepts are important. What I am noting is that the illegality of Lincoln's actions is being hidden by the reflected glare of the halo with which he has been annointed. If you were to say "I agree that Lincoln broke the law but I believe that he was morally right to do so" then we have the basis for discussion.

quote:

I add that if anyone considers that my post was an attempt to say the south was like Hitler's Germany rather than just a strong attempt to show morality matters for "wrongness", let me state plainly that was not my intention or my feelings and certainly I retract it if I wrote my post in such an inartful manner to as to legitimately give that impression.
OK, lets put that one down to a breakdown in communication and move on.


_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to lvaces)
Post #: 223
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 3:30:28 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lvaces
Here is what seems to be the longest and most thought out of Lee's thoughts on secession. The following quote is from a letter he wrote on Jan 23, 1861. The source is Douglas Southall Freeman's famous biography of Lee and it can be accessed on the internet at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/24*.html

"The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression, and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private gain. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a recourse to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution."


Thanks for the quote. It's quite interesting to see what he thought at the time (before the war started), and I agree that he seemed to be against secession in principle. But to me it's just one man's opinion, and I give it equal weight with anyone else's opinion. There were many different opinions on the subject at the time, and there are still many different opinions now.

(in reply to lvaces)
Post #: 224
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 3:42:42 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"South Carolina didnt OWN the forts, they were Federal property. They were NOT State property. Using your logic we are back to Virginia demanding Washington DC back , Virginia and North Carolina demanding the states west of them back ( the territory oroiginal was part of those States. ect ect."

Couple of points. First, Washington DC is built on the Maryland side of the Potomac, and Maryland didn't succede. So your example is baseless and silly. And the Forts were "Federal Property" of a "federation" that no longer included the South after succession. As they were built on land originally given to the "federation" by the Southern States, and using tax money provided by the Southern States; there is a solid legal basis for assuming they would "revert" to the States when they left the "federation" (Union). The Northern case is weak because they voluntarily abandoned most of them without a struggle (or a formal surrender). The Confederacy was making no claim on any "federal property" except that which was built on land they had provided.



Mike, thanks for your comments. I would add that all Federal properties up to 1860 were paid for by Northern and Southern taxpayers and were therefore the joint property of the people of the North and South. In the event of a split, both sides were entitled to a share of the Federal properties, and the simplest and most workable division of those properties would be to assign to the South all properties on Southern land, and to the North all properties on Northern land.

Thus, the Confederacy had a reasonable case for saying that it was the rightful owner of Fort Sumter itself -- not just of the land on which it sat.

Admittedly, it was impolite to assert that claim without negotiating it. But it was equally impolite of the Union to assert its own (weaker) claim to the fort, by occupying it with soldiers.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 225
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 4:47:26 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
Once again, this agruement that the tenth amendment makes seccession legal.... Umm BZZZZT, wrong answer. The 10th CLEARLY states that those powers NOT given to the Federal Government are reserved for States and the people. The Succession of the states negates EVERY power explicitly GIVEN to the Federal Government. End of discussion.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 226
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 5:05:18 PM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lvaces

quote:

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know Lee's views on secession? It was well known that he couldn't fight against Virginia and would defend it, but he may not have agreed with secession in principle.


Here is what seems to be the longest and most thought out of Lee's thoughts on secession.  The following quote is from a letter he wrote on Jan 23, 1861.  The source is Douglas Southall Freeman's famous biography of Lee and it can be accessed on the internet at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/24*.html

"The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression, and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private gain. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a recourse to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution." 


That is interesting and as pointed out, it was just one man's opinion. The line that I find interesting I've highlighted in bold. It seems to me that taking secession through the process, not a formal one existed, should have been the first step. At least make an effort to create a process. The Northern states may have been willing to just let the Southern states go, as long as hostilities hadn't broken out. This wouldn't have stopped the abolishionists from ranting and raving, but might have prevented the war. It's difficult to say, but war should be at the bottom of the list of options, not near the top.

I also highlighted in bold the reference to 'perpetual union'. While that may have been the intent, I can find no reference to that in the Preamble of the Constitution or anything that remotely implies that. It is possible that Lee heard talk of that from the older generations, but it doesn't appear to have made it into the document.

(in reply to lvaces)
Post #: 227
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 5:18:22 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Once again, this agruement that the tenth amendment makes seccession legal.... Umm BZZZZT, wrong answer. The 10th CLEARLY states that those powers NOT given to the Federal Government are reserved for States and the people. The Succession of the states negates EVERY power explicitly GIVEN to the Federal Government. End of discussion.


Secession does not negate any powers of the federal government. It merely means that those powers will be applied in future to a smaller federation...

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 228
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 5:27:52 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
It seems to me that taking secession through the process, not that a formal one existed, should have been the first step. At least make an effort to create a process. The Northern states may have been willing to just let the Southern states go, as long as hostilities hadn't broken out. This wouldn't have stopped the abolitionists from ranting and raving, but might have prevented the war. It's difficult to say, but war should be at the bottom of the list of options, not near the top.


Well, of course I agree with this. Unfortunately a lot of Americans didn't then and don't now see secession as something that can be done through a peaceful process. They see it as something involving rebellion and war. Perhaps this is an unfortunate legacy of the bloody split with Britain. A lot of trouble could have been avoided if Britain had had a wiser government in the late 18th century...

I'm not convinced that the US government would have been willing to recognize an independent Confederacy, even if it had played nice. But perhaps it might have done so reluctantly if public support for war had been seriously lacking.

< Message edited by Jonathan Palfrey -- 11/27/2006 5:37:18 PM >

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 229
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 6:02:16 PM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
I'm not convinced that the US government would have been willing to recognize an independent Confederacy, even if it had played nice. But perhaps it might have done so reluctantly if public support for war had been seriously lacking.


This is an area we could 'what if' to death. If the process had been a formal and acceptable withdraw from the Union where Congress votes on unstatehood (I'm making this up as I go along ), I would see no reason not to recognize them. On the otherhand, if no formal and acceptable process was used, but no open hostilities were initiated by the state seceding, it's difficult to speculate.

As I mentioned before, Lincoln wouldn't have had the emotional banner to rally around. I don't know how he would have reacted. No one really does. Even if someone comes up with a document where Lincoln said he would have restored the Union by force, even if Ft. Sumter wasn't fired upon, there is no way to know if he would have followed through with such an action. Heck, I can't be sure what my own kids will do from one day to the next.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 230
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 6:16:08 PM   
SlapBone


Posts: 269
Joined: 7/27/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine


Even if someone comes up with a document where Lincoln said he would have restored the Union by force, even if Ft. Sumter wasn't fired upon, there is no way to know if he would have followed through with such an action.


Ft. Sumter was only pretext. Everyone knows the War of Northern Agression was started when the US government sent John Brown to attack the arsenal at Harper's Ferry.

_____________________________


(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 231
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 6:22:04 PM   
AU Tiger_MatrixForum


Posts: 1606
Joined: 10/9/2006
From: Deepest Dixie
Status: offline


_____________________________

"Never take counsel of your fears."

Tho. Jackson

(in reply to SlapBone)
Post #: 232
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 6:55:02 PM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Mike, thanks for your comments. I would add that all Federal properties up to 1860 were paid for by Northern and Southern taxpayers and were therefore the joint property of the people of the North and South. In the event of a split, both sides were entitled to a share of the Federal properties, and the simplest and most workable division of those properties would be to assign to the South all properties on Southern land, and to the North all properties on Northern land.


At this point in time, it is difficult to say how much of the taxes was paid by the people and how much was collected on imports from foriegn countries. It is possible the vast proportion of taxes was paid by neither the North or the South, but by foriegn importers. I pay taxes, but don't know how the overall process works. (Still trying to educate myself on this process. Please don't nail me to a cross)

quote:


Thus, the Confederacy had a reasonable case for saying that it was the rightful owner of Fort Sumter itself -- not just of the land on which it sat.


Except they gave up all rights to property in 1836:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.


quote:


Admittedly, it was impolite to assert that claim without negotiating it. But it was equally impolite of the Union to assert its own (weaker) claim to the fort, by occupying it with soldiers.


Based on the document above, I don't think the Federal claim to the property is that weak. Nowhere do I see, "We want it back if we cease to be members of the Union."




< Message edited by RERomine -- 11/27/2006 7:55:42 PM >

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 233
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 8:18:10 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Once again, this agruement that the tenth amendment makes seccession legal.... Umm BZZZZT, wrong answer. The 10th CLEARLY states that those powers NOT given to the Federal Government are reserved for States and the people. The Succession of the states negates EVERY power explicitly GIVEN to the Federal Government. End of discussion.


Secession does not negate any powers of the federal government. It merely means that those powers will be applied in future to a smaller federation...

He's got you there Twotribes

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 234
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 9:03:04 PM   
Strelets

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline
I've been waiting for FoF for some time, and while lurking on this BBS have followed with interest this thread in particular.  With the game gone gold I finally broke down and registered, and now will inflict my $.02 on this subject. 

Although a Northerner by birth and a Westerner by choice, I do believe the South had the legal right of it with respect to secession, based principally on the 10th Amendment "reserved powers clause" cited above.  One interesting point which I have not seen cited in this thread is the fact that the States entered into the Constitution by “seceding” from the Articles of Confederation, without the consent of all of the Articles' signatory states (most notably Rhode Island) and despite the fact that the  Articles were more strongly worded against secession, containing a “perpetual union” clause which was considered but rejected for the Constitution.  http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=6:  
 
For an exhaustive (and exhausting) discussion of the legalities of the matter from the Southern perspective, I strongly recommend the following, written by a Southern lawyer after the war (he evidently had a lot of time on his hands):  http://www.civilwarhome.com/secessionjustification.htm

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 235
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 9:10:31 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SlapBone

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine


Even if someone comes up with a document where Lincoln said he would have restored the Union by force, even if Ft. Sumter wasn't fired upon, there is no way to know if he would have followed through with such an action.


Ft. Sumter was only pretext. Everyone knows the War of Northern Agression was started when the US government sent John Brown to attack the arsenal at Harper's Ferry.


Sure thing and of Course Lee disobeyed orders when he retook said arsenal, right? )

(in reply to SlapBone)
Post #: 236
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 9:11:47 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Once again, this agruement that the tenth amendment makes seccession legal.... Umm BZZZZT, wrong answer. The 10th CLEARLY states that those powers NOT given to the Federal Government are reserved for States and the people. The Succession of the states negates EVERY power explicitly GIVEN to the Federal Government. End of discussion.


Secession does not negate any powers of the federal government. It merely means that those powers will be applied in future to a smaller federation...

He's got you there Twotribes


No he doesnt.... IF the Government has the power then the States cant simply say, "Damn we quit" and negate that power... claiming they can ignores the reality.

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 237
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 9:30:35 PM   
Reiryc

 

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Once again, this agruement that the tenth amendment makes seccession legal.... Umm BZZZZT, wrong answer. The 10th CLEARLY states that those powers NOT given to the Federal Government are reserved for States and the people. The Succession of the states negates EVERY power explicitly GIVEN to the Federal Government. End of discussion.


Secession does not negate any powers of the federal government. It merely means that those powers will be applied in future to a smaller federation...

He's got you there Twotribes


No he doesnt.... IF the Government has the power then the States cant simply say, "Damn we quit" and negate that power... claiming they can ignores the reality.



What power do they supposedly have? Can you cite the power from the constitution for me?

_____________________________


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 238
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 9:58:15 PM   
Santee Rifleman

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Except they gave up all rights to property in 1836:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.


Based on the document above, I don't think the Federal claim to the property is that weak. Nowhere do I see, "We want it back if we cease to be members of the Union."





How about the part which reads

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state..."

It seems to me that in the first months of 1861, the Free and Sovereign State of South Carolina was merely executing the provisional escape clause in the original 1836 State Ordinance that ceded the "land" upon which Sumter was built to the United States.

Further, in 1860, the concept of the right of the People to choose their own Government was a fundamentally American one, no matter what the "legalities" were or are. Otherwise, we'd still be putting English Royal stamps on our transactions and paying taxes to a crowned tyrant. Into the Union the peace-loving citizens of South Carolina came, uncoerced, of their own free will. Out of the Union they went, peacefully and of their own free will. Morally, where is the argument? It took war, invasion, death, desolation, destruction and defeat, occupations and Reconstruction to force them back into same Union, against their will, under a government they did not choose...


Dum Spiro Spero...

W.G.U. Moultrie.





_____________________________


(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 239
RE: Secession, right or wrong? - 11/27/2006 10:21:44 PM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Santee Rifleman

How about the part which reads

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state..."

It seems to me that in the first months of 1861, the Free and Sovereign State of South Carolina was merely executing the provisional escape clause in the original 1836 State Ordinance that ceded the "land" upon which Sumter was built to the United States.

Further, in 1860, the concept of the right of the People to choose their own Government was a fundamentally American one, no matter what the "legalities" were or are. Otherwise, we'd still be putting English Royal stamps on our transactions and paying taxes to a crowned tyrant. Into the Union the peace-loving citizens of South Carolina came, uncoerced, of their own free will. Out of the Union they went, peacefully and of their own free will. Morally, where is the argument? It took war, invasion, death, desolation, destruction and defeat, occupations and Reconstruction to force them back into same Union, against their will, under a government they did not choose...


Dum Spiro Spero...

W.G.U. Moultrie.






I don't believe any supeanaes or arrest warrents were issued

(in reply to Santee Rifleman)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Secession, right or wrong? Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.172