Common Views of Secession/States Rights

[48th Miss.]

At what point did the debates end and the agreement begin with these guys. Seems some left confused or the word that got out was confused or manipulated for political reasons. Some clearly thought secession was a right. My 1833 geography book has a sentence that says we would be a strong nation "if we stay united". Can't seem to upload the page here until I learn some more. I tried but deleted it and this post as well so I retyped it. Feel free to correct any internal errors if I left any.

 

[48th Miss.]

RE: Tenth Amendment Info.

At what point did the debates end and the agreement begin with these guys. Seems some left confused or the word that got out was confused or manipulated for political reasons. Some clearly thought secession was a right. My 1833 geography book has a sentence that says we would be a strong nation "if we stay united". Can't seem to upload the page here until I learn some more. I tried but deleted it and this post as well so I retyped it. Feel free to correct any internal errors if I left any.

IMHO nationalism as the predominant ideology developed over time.   It prevailed because it worked better than the alternative.  In addition, the States Right ideology suffered from political opportunism because as soon as the States Rights party was in power it became nationalist.

Never heard of a States Rights Party. Was that the real label?

What was the beginning of that line of thought? Seems it spread pretty fast and went pretty deep?

 

[48th Miss.]

At what point did the debates end and the agreement begin with these guys. Seems some left confused or the word that got out was confused or manipulated for political reasons. Some clearly thought secession was a right. My 1833 geography book has a sentence that says we would be a strong nation "if we stay united". Can't seem to upload the page here until I learn some more. I tried but deleted it and this post as well so I retyped it. Feel free to correct any internal errors if I left any.

IMHO nationalism as the predominant ideology developed over time.   It prevailed because it worked better than the alternative.  In addition, the States Right ideology suffered from political opportunism because as soon as the States Rights party was in power it became nationalist.

Never heard of a States Rights Party. Was that the real label?

What was the beginning of that line of thought? Seems it spread pretty fast and went pretty deep?

Any party that espouses States Rights outside of power, becomes nationalistic when in power.

Seems odd that we are trying to understand and debate today with clarity a topic that did not seem to be clear in the day it was first stated.  It would appear that few outside the political process really understood what was being set up. Debates were had but agreement and understanding was absent like they only agreed based on what they understood verses perhaps what was.

 

[jgoodguy]

I split these posts off so they can get more attention.  

I think the common views of secession are important and deserving of discussion.  The problem is that common views are not law.  There is the Constitution for example and what folks think is in the Consitution.

 

[5fish]

The best argument for secession is that the Constitution does not bar it but than that notion gets trump by... This...

It's not allowed. The concept that thestates are forever bonded to theConstitution is known as the theory ofperpetual union.

The only legal way is for Congress to pass a law allowing it or creating the steps to achieve it... or just fight a conflict to achieve as long as you win the conflict ..

 

[5fish]

There is the Constitution for example and what folks think is in the Consitution.

Our Consitution was not a change of governance but a revolution in the Administration of Government. Our Consitution is not a change in our governance but the perpetual continuance of our old governance under new administrative laws...

 

[Kirk's Raider's]

As I always argued at CWT if Secession was perfectly legal the secessionists would of sought the protection of the federal courts. Instead of course they chose war thinking one Johnny Reb could beat ten Billy Yanks.
Kirk's Raider's

 

[jgoodguy]

As I always argued at CWT if Secession was perfectly legal the secessionists would of sought the protection of the federal courts. Instead of course they chose war thinking one Johnny Reb could beat ten Billy Yanks.
Kirk's Raider's

There was a lot of Southern pride and honor at Stake. Don't bet on the Federal Courts too much, without the attack on Fort Sumter, getting legal cover to force the States Back into the Union is very iffy and it is a Southern Dominated Court.

IMHO it is simply that the seceded States' political leaders felt they had a right to secede and anything interfering with that was tantamount to a declaration of war.

 

[nicholls]

I was arguing with someone about secession on another forum (not Civil War Talk) and this guy said the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Why do so many people deny slavery was an issue of the war? This is his comment:


"There is a myth in the USA that the civil war was fought over slavery. This is total BS and there is an excellent treatment of this
by a black American historian whom I saw interviewed on PBS a long time ago. The emancipation of the slaves by Lincoln came late
in the game and was more of a ploy to break the South and this was stated by Lincoln himself. The civil war was fought over the
secession of the South. And this secession was not based on freeing of the slaves."

"The slavery explanation for the civil war is pure BS. Just because the South wanted to preserve it does not imply that it was
the prime cause. The prime cause was secession. Secession was prompted by many factors including too much power
being effectively wielded by the North. US states are legally supposed to be something close to countries and not provinces."



This was my response:

The South was fighting for the preservation of slavery, which it considered threatened. The US was fighting to preserve the nation, with no consideration for slavery at first. Later in the war, the US war effort did take slavery into consideration but not to preserve it.

Slavery was the main issue for the side that started the war.

The US was willing to compromise to a certain extent on slavery in order to avoid war. But the US did not fight for or against slavery at the beginning of the war.

Slavery was the major issue because for the South, it was their major issue.

The purpose of both secession and the war was for the South to withdraw from the Union to form a separate country to protect slavery.

We can dance around in rhetorical games all we want but that's why Lincoln's election drove secession - meaning that by necessity "slavery was a major issue of the war."

Would like people to comment on his statement. I think my response was a good rebuttal.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

"There is a myth in the USA that the civil war was fought over slavery.

Of course there is, because in the immediate aftermath--and some current revisionist and confederate myths--post 1865-- are based upon succession propaganda.

 

[diane]

The purpose of both secession and the war was for the South to withdraw from the Union to form a separate country to protect slavery.

This was really the kernel. The antebellum South, its culture, society, wealth, class system was based on slavery whether a person owned any or not. A plain average farmer aspired to gain enough money to purchase a slave or two, thereby taking a step up the ladder of success in the South. This wasn't the norm in the North. Wade Hampton was reckoned to be the richest man in the South - he owned somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 slaves. Take them away and he would very soon no longer have that status! You bet he was fighting to keep slavery.

 

[jgoodguy]

Some related questions.

What power was being wield by the North that threatened the South? -- Demand details.
Extra credit question is to ask what actions of the Lincoln administration drove the South to secession.
This might be interesting.

Timeline of Compromises over Slavery · SHEC: Resources for Teachers

Primary resources, classroom activities, graphic organizers and lesson plans produced by the American Social History Project designed for use in K-12 classrooms.

herb.ashp.cuny.edu

As what issues other than slavery divided the nation.
Feel welcome if tariffs show up to drop back here.

 

[jgoodguy]

This was really the kernel. The antebellum South, its culture, society, wealth, class system was based on slavery whether a person owned any or not. A plain average farmer aspired to gain enough money to purchase a slave or two, thereby taking a step up the ladder of success in the South. This wasn't the norm in the North. Wade Hampton was reckoned to be the richest man in the South - he owned somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 slaves. Take them away and he would very soon no longer have that status! You bet he was fighting to keep slavery.

Yes
Slavery drove the
Religion
Society
Wealth
and
Politics of the South.

Slavery was the store of wealth, it was the foundation of Church and University endowments, pensions, retirement funds, widow and orphans funds, collateral for loans as well as a capital investment for agricultural and industrial enterprises.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Feel welcome if tariffs show up to drop back here.

No, not tariffs...again.


Oh hell, why not.

 

[jgoodguy]

No, not tariffs...again.


Oh hell, why not.

Gotta keep in practice.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Gotta keep in practice.

No Tariffication™ without representation!!!

Oh wait, there was representation. But, according to my meticulously "plotted" chart, crafted thru decades of research, tariffs were the cause of the Late Unpleasantness and it can be proven that it all mostly started in our modern day with Lincoln...

Start top left and work your way "down" to the bottom, the white rabbit knows all.

 

[jgoodguy]

No Tariffication™ without representation!!!

Oh wait, there was representation. But, according to my meticulously "plotted" chart, crafted thru decades of research, tariffs were the cause of the Late Unpleasantness and it can be proven that it all mostly started in our modern day with Lincoln...

Start top left and work your way "down" to the bottom, the white rabbit knows all.

I get zits caused secession.

 

[nicholls]

This was another response that I wrote to him:

"I’d recommend getting your history from real historians, whose approach is scientific, and whose views are based on historical facts, rather than Lost Cause sentiment, modern day politics, or, worst of all, neo-confederate extremism.

Then what was the prime cause of secession? If you contention is true, why did the seceding states issue proclamations upon secession declaring that the purpose of secession was to protect the institution of slavery? As in nullification slavery is at the root of the trouble. Nullification in 1828 was about tariffs but it is because of the south’s slave driven agrarian economy that it was an issue at all.
So slavery is at the root of or in some cases is the whole tree of secession whether it be tariffs or expansion or states rights or whatever.

https://wallbuilders.com/confronting-civil-war-revisionism-south-went-war/

Of course, a nation without the ability to make treaties with other nations, or coin its own money, or mantain a military force of its own would not be regarded as fully sovereign, to say the least.

The States in my understanding were never sovereign.

First they were colonies.
Then they formed a tenuous union. The "United Provinces of (North) America."
Then we get the Articles of Confederation, which produce a weak (pitifully so), but real national government.
Then we get the Constitution, which pretty much rules out any of the powers that are exercised only by independent sovereign bodies and grants them to the national government.

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 were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is 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 by the consent of all the people in convention assembled.
<J. William Jones, Life and Letters of Robert Edward Lee, Soldier and Man. (New York: Neale Publishing Company, 1906), pp. 120-121.> "

 

[jgoodguy]

Then we get the Articles of Confederation, which produce a weak (pitifully so), but real national government.
Then we get the Constitution, which pretty much rules out any of the powers that are exercised only by independent sovereign bodies and grants them to the national government.

The essential diffraction between a Confederation and a Federation is that there is no get out of Union free card for a federation.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

there is no get out of Union free card

I'll take the railroads, utilities and Park Place.

Oh, wait...that's