Reminder: Democrats ran the KKK, started the Civil War, celebrated slavery and fought against

thenationalsentinel.com ^ | July 29, 2019 | J. D. Heyes

[x]

How, then, can it be fairly said Buchanan took a “hardline” against secession?

As a matter of constitutional law, Buchanan took a hard line against secession. In terms of using his presidential powers against it, Buchanan did nothing. That doesn't mean that he thought secession was constitutional or that he thought the cotton slave states were right to secede.

It's a subtle distinction between theory and practice, but most people would probably be able to grasp it. Maybe the word "hardliner," implying somebody who would do anything to defeat some measure or action, makes it hard to understand what's involved here. Think of it this way if you have to: Buchanan drew a firm line or a clear line or a solid, unequivocal line against secession in theory, in terms of constitutional law - without being any kind of "hardliner" in actual practice.

If you want to play Latter Day Confederate, though, don't run down Buchanan, he was the best thing the secessionists were going to get. And for all his faults and flaws and his utter failure as president, he did give them a little good advice about what to do and what not to do and why.

[jeffersondem]

“They don't stay in the Union. They steal federal property.They fire on federal troops.”

Most, if not all, of the 13,000 Americans that Lincoln imprisoned were in Union states, under Union control. Some were Union state legislators; Union state newspaper editors whose only crimes were to criticize Lincoln. The newspaper editors did not fire on federal troops.

President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for United States citizens.

At some point you need to come to grips with what he did.

[jeffersondem]

“Think of it this way if you have to: Buchanan drew a firm line or a clear line or a solid, unequivocal line against secession in theory, in terms of constitutional law . . .”

No he did not - at least not in the parts of his State of the Union speech referenced in post 289. Buchanan makes no constitutional-rooted claim that secession is illegal.

Buchanan instead, invokes a religious test from the Sermon on the Mount: “Surely under these circumstances we ought to be restrained from present action by the precept of Him who spake as man never spoke, that “sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.””

It is fine that Buchanan used a Biblical reference. Nothing wrong with that.

But I believe if Buchanan had a compelling Constitutional argument that would negate the 9th and 10th amendments, and the founding principal “consent of the governed,” he would have verbalized it in his supposed “unequivocal line against secession in theory.”

As would you.

[x]

None of that would have happened but for the Civil War. Presidents do things in crises that they wouldn't do in ordinary times. Ask Jefferson Davis about that. He did the same things for the same reasons - though with less justification from our present-day point of view.

With all these conspiracy theories floating around, consider this one: Maybe Jefferson Davis and the other secessionists were agents (paid or not) of the abolitionists or the Northern industrialists. Things happened to slavery and the South that wouldn't have happened if they'd only stayed with the union. Maybe that was what key secessionists were secretly working for. It's not as crazy as some things people say on line.

[x]

Buchanan makes no constitutional-rooted claim that secession is illegal.

I don't have time to go through everything Buchanan said or didn't say. But here's one thing he said:

“Such a principle [of secession] is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Constitution… In that mighty struggle between the first intellects of this or any other country it never occurred to any individual, either among its opponents or advocates, to assert or even to intimate that their efforts were all vain labor, because the moment that any State felt herself aggrieved she might secede from the Union.”

Here is another:

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.

Here's what he said on January 8th 1860:

In my annual message I expressed the conviction, which I have long deliberately held, and which recent reflection has only tended to deepen and confirm, that no State has a right by its own act to secede from the Union or throw off its federal obligations at pleasure. I also declared my opinion to be that even if that right existed and should be exercised by any State of the Confederacy the executive department of this Government had no authority under the Constitution to recognize its validity by acknowledging the independence of such State. This left me no alternative, as the chief executive officer under the Constitution of the United States, but to collect the public revenues and to protect the public property so far as this might be practicable under existing laws. This is still my purpose. My province is to execute and not to make the laws. It belongs to Congress exclusively to repeal, to modify, or to enlarge their provisions to meet exigencies as they may occur. I possess no dispensing power.

Buchanan was quite clear about what he believed, though people might argue forever about the real meaning of what he said. James Buchanan had passed the bar, but he was not a Constitutional lawyer. His arguments, so far as I have been able to ascertain, don't cite sections of the Constitution, but operate in more general terms. Because Buchanan wasn't in court making a case before judges, his arguments focused more on whether there were valid grounds for secession, not on specific clauses of the Constitution.

But this strongly implies that unilateral secession at will, for any reason or none was not a right retained by the states (indeed, Buchanan says just that in the sentence in bold above). There would have to be a ground for revolutionary actions that went beyond the simple desire of people in any state to be rid of the union, and Buchanan did not believe that such reasons existed. Therefore, secession, not being a constitutional provision, was also not justified as a legitimate act of revolution against unbearable grievances. In any case, it's clear that Buchanan thought that secession would make the Constitution meaningless and that unilateral secession was not a right that states had.

I get the feeling this is a pointless quarrel. When somebody says, "You have absolutely no right to do that, but neither I nor anybody else has the right to stop you," people can argue forever, going around and around in circles, about what the meaning or intention behind those words is. If nobody can stop you, can't it be said that you actually do have a right? And what are we to make of the attitude of the person who finds something wrong but will do nothing to stop it or hinder it? But historians will tell you that Buchanan did not believe that the Constitution allowed for slavery. Because he didn't. And (though it's another endless argument) the Constitution didn't either.

If you want to go on being a neo-Confederate, you shouldn't be too hard on Buchanan. With all his many faults, he did provide an example of how Northerners could cave in to secession without feeling that they had betrayed their convictions. Otherwise, if one truly believed that secession was unconstitutional one would have to take action against it.

[OIFVeteran]

An absolutely none of that would have happened if the southern states hadn’t rebelled. A Presidents powers are vastly increased during a war/rebellion. If the south hadn’t seceded they still had enough power in congress to stop any republican move against slavery. That wasn’t good enough for them, they wanted their own country where slavery would be the cornerstone that the country was built on. Where it was explicitly protected and enshrined.

[BroJoeK]

x quoting Buchanan: "In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. "

Another great post, thanks.

Please note here the words I've emphasized, "at pleasure", they are key to understanding both our Founders and 1860s Unionists.
"At pleasure" comes to us directly from President Madison's letter to Trist, but once you have that idea fixed firmly in your mind, reading any other Founder, you will never find a place where that Founder contradicts Madison's or Buchanan's point.

• Unilateral secession for cause, such as in 1776 -- sure, all Founders supported that.

• Secession by mutual consent, such as in 1788 -- sure, with mutual consent "at pleasure" disunion was totally acceptable.

• Unilateral secession "at pleasure" -- NO! No Founder ever proposed or supported such actions.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "And contrary to Buchanan’s expectations - and the U.S. Constitution - Lincoln arrested without charges and without trial, of as many as 13,000 United States citizens and imprisoned them for years."

Sure, after Confederates formally declared war on the United States!
That made adhering to Confederates, giving them aid & comfort, treason.
And meantime, what did Confederates do?

"The Confederacy actively used the army to arrest people suspected of loyalty to the United States.
Historian Mark Neely found 4,108 names of men arrested and estimated a much larger total.[268]
The Confederacy arrested pro-Union civilians in the South at about the same rate as the Union arrested pro-Confederate civilians in the North.[269]
Neely argues:

'The Confederate citizen was not any freer than the Union citizen – and perhaps no less likely to be arrested by military authorities.
In fact, the Confederate citizen may have been in some ways less free than his Northern counterpart.
For example, freedom to travel within the Confederate states was severely limited by a domestic passport system.' [270]"

We don't know just who or where Confederate citizens were arrested, but it was most likely in Unionist strongholds like western Virginia, eastern Tennessee & western North Carolina.

We do know that most Union arrests of Confederate sympathizers happened in Border States like Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri.
Most Union states saw few to no such arrests.

[jeffersondem]

“Buchanan was quite clear about what he believed, though people might argue forever about the real meaning of what he said. James Buchanan had passed the bar, but he was not a Constitutional lawyer. His arguments, so far as I have been able to ascertain, don't cite sections of the Constitution, but operate in more general terms. Because Buchanan wasn't in court making a case before judges, his arguments focused more on whether there were valid grounds for secession, not on specific clauses of the Constitution. But this strongly implies that unilateral secession at will, for any reason or none was not a right retained by the states (indeed, Buchanan says just that in the sentence in bold above). There would have to be a ground for revolutionary actions that went beyond the simple desire of people in any state to be rid of the union, and Buchanan did not believe that such reasons existed. Therefore, secession, not being a constitutional provision, was also not justified as a legitimate act of revolution against unbearable grievances. In any case, it's clear that Buchanan thought that secession would make the Constitution meaningless and that unilateral secession was not a right that states had. I get the feeling this is a pointless quarrel. When somebody says, “You have absolutely no right to do that, but neither I nor anybody else has the right to stop you,” people can argue forever, going around and around in circles, about what the meaning or intention behind those words is. If nobody can stop you, can't it be said that you actually do have a right? And what are we to make of the attitude of the person who finds something wrong but will do nothing to stop it or hinder it? But historians will tell you that Buchanan did not believe that the Constitution allowed for slavery. Because he didn't. And (though it's another endless argument) the Constitution didn't either. If you want to go on being a neo-Confederate, you shouldn't be too hard on Buchanan. With all his many faults, he did provide an example of how Northerners could cave in to secession without feeling that they had betrayed their convictions. Otherwise, if one truly believed that secession was unconstitutional one would have to take action against it.”

Thank you for the additional quotes of Buchanan. I had not seen those and they help me to better understand your views.

Also, thank you for your sincere and reasonable explanation of your views. We need more of that around here.

That said, I don't think the debate's equilibrium has shifted much for me yet.

The very last quote of your post (below) undercuts the contention that Buchanan was hardline in any meaningful sense of the word.

“Otherwise, if one truly believed that secession was unconstitutional one would have to take action against it.”

[jeffersondem]

“. . . you will never find a place where that Founder contradicts Madison’s or Buchanan’s point.”

They were dead, Jim.

[jeffersondem]

“None of that would have happened but for the Civil War. Presidents do things in crises that they wouldn’t do in ordinary times. Ask Jefferson Davis about that.”

It is no answer to a complaint of injustice to say, “others have committed similar acts of injustice.”

Each is liable to separate action; each is to be restrained.

Citizens in Union states that attempted to restrain Lincoln’s excesses were locked up without trial.

[x]

Citizens in Union states that attempted to restrain Lincoln’s excesses were locked up without trial.

Same thing with those in Confederate states who weren't keen on Davis's regime and war.

It is no answer to a complaint of injustice to say, “others have committed similar acts of injustice.”

Of course it is. If Churchill's or Roosevelt's government restricted your freedom in some way, "Do you want to take your chances with Hitler" was a pretty good answer. And saying, "Davis does the same thing" or "You hold people in chains and give them no liberty at all" was a good response to slaveowners who called Lincoln a tyrant.

But you've had your say and I've had mine. I don't want to keep going around in circles about this. If you don't have anything new to say, stop saying the same thing over and over again and thinking that it will convince anybody.

[jeffersondem]

“That wasn’t good enough for them, they wanted their own country where slavery would be the cornerstone that the country was built on. Where it was explicitly protected and enshrined.”

Southerners had had that since 1776. In 1860 they wanted more: elimination of confiscatory taxation and protection from northern financed murder raids.

[jeffersondem]

“With all these conspiracy theories floating around, consider this one: Maybe Jefferson Davis and the other secessionists were agents (paid or not) of the abolitionists or the Northern industrialists.”

I am not familiar with that theory - hence my involuntary expression of stolid amazement.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "They were dead, Jim."

They were all Founders and lived through that era.
None ever proposed or supported unilateral secession at pleasure.

[jeffersondem]

“Sure, after Confederates formally declared war on the United States! That made adhering to Confederates, giving them aid & comfort, treason.”

For the purpose of this post, let's stipulate that all 13,000 or so United States citizens previously mentioned were suspected of treason.

The United States Constitution deals with that: “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

Those imprisoned, or very few, on the say-so of President Lincoln ever saw the inside of a courtroom; ever charged with a crime; ever had a speedy and public trial with an impartial jury; ever allowed to confront witnesses against them; ever allowed to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor.

Lincoln's victims were deprived of liberty without due process of law.

Brings to mind: “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant.”

[jeffersondem]

“Of course it is. If Churchill's or Roosevelt's government restricted your freedom in some way, “Do you want to take your chances with Hitler” was a pretty good answer.”

Uummm, you said “Hitler.”

[DiogenesLamp]

Once again, someone who has no comprehension of what the Declaration of Independence says.

It leaves it up to the states to decide for themselves what they consider to be intolerable abuses.

[jeffersondem]

“”At pleasure” comes to us directly from President Madison's letter to Trist, but once you have that idea fixed firmly in your mind, reading any other Founder, you will never find a place where that Founder contradicts Madison's or Buchanan's point.”

One reason no other founding father of the Constitution challenged Madison's 1830 letter to Trist may be because they had all died by 1829.

That is why the man said, “They were dead, Jim.”

[DiogenesLamp]

This is so stupid. Madison was a member of the committee that wrote Virginia's ratification statement. Virginia clearly said it can reassume it's powers given up to the Federal government. If Madison had any issues with this position, he should have voiced them during the committee meetings.

Virginia's collective statement, and one of which Madison was a part, rebukes Madison's 1830 claim. So do the statements of New York and Rhode Island.

Madison of 1830 would have us believe no one had contemplated leaving the Union, but the ratification statements of New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island clearly prove that they did.

What's that legal term of art?

"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus."