A question about the Civil War, States' rights, and seceding

[Type Username Here]

it's kind of like how getting divorced goes against a vow of "to death do us part"

I don't think the option/right to secede was really built into the system

Isn't that a bit weird though? The Declaration of Independence goes on and on about being able to break ties with the ruling government when deemed necessary.

The Civil War/Slavery connection is a bad one because people attach their moral stances on slavery to it (and understandably so). I'm trying to engage strictly on the legal basis for secession and if preventing a region from seceding amounts to a "domestic imperialism" of sorts.

 

[daze23]

Isn't that a bit weird though? The Declaration of Independence goes on and on about being able to break ties with the ruling government when deemed necessary.

The Civil War/Slavery connection is a bad one because people attach their moral stances on slavery to it (and understandably so). I'm trying to engage strictly on the legal basis for secession and if preventing a region from seceding amounts to a "domestic imperialism" of sorts.

it also says "all men are created equal" and other things that seem hypocritical

the "founding fathers" had some good ideas. but they were also a bunch of greedy dudes that just wanted their own shyt, and put some words behind it to make it happen

 

[88m3]

Isn't that a bit weird though? The Declaration of Independence goes on and on about being able to break ties with the ruling government when deemed necessary.

Not really, they wanted to legalize what they had done(treason). By putting it in writing they believed it would give them a leg to stand on. American sailors were pressed into British service and goods were taken through the war of 1812. Britain was the superpower of the time, they ruled the world.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Isn't that a bit weird though? The Declaration of Independence goes on and on about being able to break ties with the ruling government when deemed necessary.

The Civil War/Slavery connection is a bad one because people attach their moral stances on slavery to it (and understandably so). I'm trying to engage strictly on the legal basis for secession and if preventing a region from seceding amounts to a "domestic imperialism" of sorts.

With all due respect, what makes you think the DOI establishes a principle of separation "when deemed necessary."

The reasons were very clearly and plainly laid out

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

• He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
• He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
• He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
• He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
• He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
• He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
• He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
• He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
• He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
• He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
• For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
• For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
• For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
• For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
• For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
• For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
• For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
• For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
• For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
• He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
• He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
• He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
• He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
• He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

 

[Type Username Here]

With all due respect, what makes you think the DOI establishes a principle of separation "when deemed necessary."

The reasons were very clearly and plainly laid out

Yes, and I was speaking about this part

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

I don't understand what problem you had with what I said. It clearly says that there. Despotism is not only confined to the rule of one individual either. What is the issue?

 

[DEAD7]

The complete legal ability to break away from a centralized government by choice.

I know it has since been changed after the Civil War, but I am curious on the position of this prior to that.

On paper, yes, they had the "right", in practice no, it was never a real possibility.

Spoiler

and still isnt

 

[dennis roadman]

Yes, and I was speaking about this part



I don't understand what problem you had with what I said. It clearly says that there. Despotism is not only confined to the rule of one individual either. What is the issue?

if you're looking for a black and white legal precedent, it's not there. but america's independence was cooked up by educated philosophers, they had to orchestrate and/or exploit events like the boston massacre to get the common man on their side. so if you're looking for a philosophical precedent, yes, the south had it and used it. to them, george washington and tom jefferson were yeoman virginians who uprooted themselves from the safe bosom of a centralized power and exercised the rights of man freely. secession would have made and apparently did make perfect sense in this light

 

[observe]

Basically, if I may add things weren't as consolidated in those times so in the minds of the south succession was totally fine. This was during the ongoing Manifest Destiny that was changing the landscape from the East to the West Coast. So with a rapidly changing landscape and an extremely wealthy southern aristocracy the motivation makes sense, I mean if they broke from the British Empire why not from the Union? Cotton for example was bought in large amounts by northern factories to make shirts to they can get paid so both sides were effected in quite different ways, if the South became its own nation you potentially make even more money from the exporting of product to the north. Slave State vs Free State, changes in currency, and the shift from an agricultural to an industrial economy gave the south a lot of reasons as to why they should secede in order to maintain their way or life, culture, the way they make money, etc.

Slavery in a political sense wasn't even the most important agenda, it was just a part of the states rights vs federal rights/abolitionist vs planter battle which was an electrifying subject. Fact of the matter is by the time of the Civil War the economic power was shifting north and either a Confederacy was gonna be the style of governance thus to ensure more slave states and the maintaining of the southern lifestyle on a cultural, economic, and by that point a political level or the North would have its way. Since the North won, the opposite happened. Who wins dictated the terms moving forward. Cacs like Lincoln didn't give a fukk about slaves like that, cacs like John Brown did tho.

yup it was a war on economics and not a war to free slaves like they teach in school..lincoln didnt free slaves till 3 years into the war to boost moral..and there were still border states in the Union who remained slave states( delaware, maryland,, kentucky, and missouri) during the war..it was a war on the North taxing the south on cotton and the south refused and seceded..during the war the south tried to sell cotton to england but england refused because they were getting cotton from Egypt and they were colonising the world....England knew the confedaracy was losing and if they fought with them and lost then England would lose its foothold on Canada..

its all lofty ideas about how the North fought a war to liberate the slaves but thats just a benign narrative and not the fact that they were making way for capitilism during the industrial age and they needed more workers and consumers to circulate bills

 

[Serious]

yup it was a war on economics and not a war to free slaves like they teach in school..lincoln didnt free slaves till 3 years into the war to boost moral..and there were still border states in the Union who remained slave states( delaware, maryland,, kentucky, and missouri) during the war..it was a war on the North taxing the south on cotton and the south refused and succeded..during the war the south tried to sell cotton to england but england refused because they were getting cotton from Egypt and they were colonising the world....England knew the confedaracy was losing and if they fought with them and lost then England would lose its foothold on Canada..

its all lofty ideas about how the North fought a war to liberate the slaves but thats just a benign narrative and not the fact that they were making way for capitilism during the industrial age and they needed more workers and consumers to circulate bills

Man I try telling these cats, every stance America takes is profit based.

 

[observe]

Man I try telling these cats, every stance America takes is profit based.

ya the north was taxing the shyt outta the south and they were like fukk yall we'll make our own country and export cotton..thats basically how it started

 

[DEAD7]

Man I try telling these cats, every stance America takes is profit based.

and?

 

[dennis roadman]

yup it was a war on economics and not a war to free slaves like they teach in school..lincoln didnt free slaves till 3 years into the war to boost moral..and there were still border states in the Union who remained slave states( delaware, maryland,, kentucky, and missouri) during the war..it was a war on the North taxing the south on cotton and the south refused and seceded..during the war the south tried to sell cotton to england but england refused because they were getting cotton from Egypt and they were colonising the world....England knew the confedaracy was losing and if they fought with them and lost then England would lose its foothold on Canada..

its all lofty ideas about how the North fought a war to liberate the slaves but thats just a benign narrative and not the fact that they were making way for capitilism during the industrial age and they needed more workers and consumers to circulate bills

that's not totally fair to the abolitionist movement that had been building steam for years

an interesting discussion would be who used whom more effectively and to what end: capitalist industrialists and politicians in their pockets or abolitionists and politicians sympathetic to their cause

even that is oversimplified, as im sure some had feet in both

 

[observe]

that's not totally fair to the abolitionist movement that had been building steam for years

an interesting discussion would be who used whom more effectively and to what end: capitalist industrialists and politicians in their pockets or abolitionists and politicians sympathetic to their cause

even that is oversimplified, as im sure some had feet in both

Tariffs, not slavery, precipitated the American Civil War
July 06, 2013
Arthur Hirsch's recent article about the Battle of Gettysburg reveals a disturbing ignorance of the political dynamics that brought this nation to a war that 150 years later remains the most cataclysmic event in our history ("A defining day relived," July 2).

It accepts the shallow but unchallenged premise that the Civil War occurred because slavery was practiced in the South, and that righteous resolve to abolish the institution left the U.S. with no option other than a resort to arms . This is a myopic view with which many historical facts simply cannot be reconciled.

The war resulted from causes unrelated to slavery and abolition. It was entirely a consequence of the Southern states' secession, which occurred despite the undeniable fact that the slave states could not have hoped for better protection of slavery than that afforded by the U. S. Constitution — provided they remained in the Union.

Both Lincoln and the slaveholders well knew in 1860 that a constitutional amendment ending slavery would never be mathematically feasible. But Lincoln further understood that the South was gravitating toward secession as the remedy for a different grievance altogether: The egregiously inequitable effects of a U. S. protective tariff that provided 90 percent of federal revenue .

Foreign governments retaliated for it with tariffs of their own, and payment of those overseas levies represented the cost to Americans of their U. S. government . Southerners were generating two-thirds of U. S. exports, and also bearing two-thirds of the retaliatory tariffs abroad.

The result was that that the 18.5 percent of America's citizens who lived in the South were saddled with three times their proportionate share of the federal government's costs.

Campaigning At New York's Cooper Union, Lincoln, arguing for unlimited federal control of slavery in America's territories, seduced his audience with research disclosing how 21 of the 39 Signers of the Constitution, by joining elsewhere in various other acts of legislation that awarded this territorial authority to the U. S. government, revealed that delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention included a clear majority whose intent had in fact been that this authority be granted to the federal government.

But in 1860, the overriding issue of the day was not slavery in the territories: it was secession. And when addressed in this latter context, Lincoln's same research undeniably proves there had been majority intent among delegates to the 1787 Convention that each state was to retain a permanent right of exit. Ten of Lincoln's foregoing 21 Signers represented slave states. Absent a retained secession option, not one of them would have signed a Constitution that empowered the U. S. to prohibit territorial slavery. Alone, the Northwest Territory represented the potential in 1787 for five new non-slave states, which would promptly have reduced the Old South to just one-third of eighteen total states: and the Constitution they were crafting was to permit any amendment that was opposed by only one-quarter of the states — including one that could abolish slavery if six more non-slave states were thereafter admitted. Lincoln could not have failed to recognize that the Signers had been in agreement upon a right to secede, without which no constitution would have gelled at all. Accordingly, secession remained in 1860 a right both legal and honorable.

In the face of all these considerations, Lincoln could have proposed a Southern slave emancipation reciprocated by sweeping federal fiscal reform that would replace the protective tariff with a nationwide income tax. Instead, Lincoln's remedy was the catastrophic one that denied Southerners their exit by military force: which represented exercise of a federal authority conspicuously absent from the all-inclusive list of powers granted by the Constitution to the U. S. government. Such a transformative quid-pro-quo may or may not have proven achievable. But in as much as it was not even attempted, no Gettysburg visitor should ever be led to believe that the Civil War objective of the U.S. was anything other than preservation of its protective tariff in the Old South.

Dennis G. Saunders, Columbia

 

[dennis roadman]

Tariffs, not slavery, precipitated the American Civil War
July 06, 2013
Arthur Hirsch's recent article about the Battle of Gettysburg reveals a disturbing ignorance of the political dynamics that brought this nation to a war that 150 years later remains the most cataclysmic event in our history ("A defining day relived," July 2).

It accepts the shallow but unchallenged premise that the Civil War occurred because slavery was practiced in the South, and that righteous resolve to abolish the institution left the U.S. with no option other than a resort to arms . This is a myopic view with which many historical facts simply cannot be reconciled.

The war resulted from causes unrelated to slavery and abolition. It was entirely a consequence of the Southern states' secession, which occurred despite the undeniable fact that the slave states could not have hoped for better protection of slavery than that afforded by the U. S. Constitution — provided they remained in the Union.

Both Lincoln and the slaveholders well knew in 1860 that a constitutional amendment ending slavery would never be mathematically feasible. But Lincoln further understood that the South was gravitating toward secession as the remedy for a different grievance altogether: The egregiously inequitable effects of a U. S. protective tariff that provided 90 percent of federal revenue .

Foreign governments retaliated for it with tariffs of their own, and payment of those overseas levies represented the cost to Americans of their U. S. government . Southerners were generating two-thirds of U. S. exports, and also bearing two-thirds of the retaliatory tariffs abroad.

The result was that that the 18.5 percent of America's citizens who lived in the South were saddled with three times their proportionate share of the federal government's costs.

Campaigning At New York's Cooper Union, Lincoln, arguing for unlimited federal control of slavery in America's territories, seduced his audience with research disclosing how 21 of the 39 Signers of the Constitution, by joining elsewhere in various other acts of legislation that awarded this territorial authority to the U. S. government, revealed that delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention included a clear majority whose intent had in fact been that this authority be granted to the federal government.

But in 1860, the overriding issue of the day was not slavery in the territories: it was secession. And when addressed in this latter context, Lincoln's same research undeniably proves there had been majority intent among delegates to the 1787 Convention that each state was to retain a permanent right of exit. Ten of Lincoln's foregoing 21 Signers represented slave states. Absent a retained secession option, not one of them would have signed a Constitution that empowered the U. S. to prohibit territorial slavery. Alone, the Northwest Territory represented the potential in 1787 for five new non-slave states, which would promptly have reduced the Old South to just one-third of eighteen total states: and the Constitution they were crafting was to permit any amendment that was opposed by only one-quarter of the states — including one that could abolish slavery if six more non-slave states were thereafter admitted. Lincoln could not have failed to recognize that the Signers had been in agreement upon a right to secede, without which no constitution would have gelled at all. Accordingly, secession remained in 1860 a right both legal and honorable.

In the face of all these considerations, Lincoln could have proposed a Southern slave emancipation reciprocated by sweeping federal fiscal reform that would replace the protective tariff with a nationwide income tax. Instead, Lincoln's remedy was the catastrophic one that denied Southerners their exit by military force: which represented exercise of a federal authority conspicuously absent from the all-inclusive list of powers granted by the Constitution to the U. S. government. Such a transformative quid-pro-quo may or may not have proven achievable. But in as much as it was not even attempted, no Gettysburg visitor should ever be led to believe that the Civil War objective of the U.S. was anything other than preservation of its protective tariff in the Old South.

Dennis G. Saunders, Columbia

Yeah, well, that's just like, his opinion, man