Posted on 06/23/2016 2:04:08 PM PDT by ColdOne
Again, that's an argument made by secessionists in years even before 1861.
But here's what we know for certain: in terms of constitutional "happiness", meaning full willing participants in the Federal Union, all Deep South states were perfectly "happy" on November 5, 1860.
But less than a week later they were deeply "unhappy" enough to begin declaring unilateral secessions, so what had changed?
Answer: nothing had changed -- zilch, zero, nada -- after November 5, 1860, no Federal crime was committed, no "usurpation", no "oppression", no "injury", nothing.
Only one thing had actually changed: the entirely constitutional election of the first Republican president, "Ape" Lincoln and his "Black Republican" majority in Congress.
Lincoln had not even taken office, Congress had not yet met, nothing in the slightest had changed from November 5, 1860 and yet Deep South "happiness" had drastically changed.
That by definition means their declarations of secession were not "for cause", but rather "at pleasure" which was not according to Founders' Original Intent.
And the historical fact is that even Virginians recognized the difference between secession "at pleasure" versus "for cause" and so Virginians refused to secede until the Confederacy could engineer a material cause sufficient to justify secession: Fort Sumter.
rustbucket: "You don't seem to realize that Madison was not consistent.
How do you rationalize the "disappointed" statement he made in response to Patrick Henry.
Was Madison promising one thing to mollify an opponent and saying something else later?"
Yes, I know how hard it is to keep all these key words straight, so simply ask you to review your own quote.
Madison's word was not "disappointed", but "dissatisfied" as I discussed in the post above.
Since there are different levels of "dissatisfied", is there any reason to suppose by it Madison seemed to advocate secession "at pleasure"?
I think not.
rustbucket quoting Madison: "Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan.
Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union."
Again, Madison's words here are entirely consistent with his later thoughts.
In political terms, what does "happiness" mean?
The Founders' own Declaration of Independence provides a long list of abuses which clearly describe a loss of political happiness.
So, how many of those conditions applied in 1860?
None, of course, not one.
And so it can be concluded that Deep South Fire Eaters declared their secession not for political "happiness", but rather "at pleasure".
While political "happiness" was necessary for Union, secession "at pleasure" was not Founders' Original Intent.
I noticed.
What you and every pro-Confederate "conveniently ignore" is the historical fact that until 1860, the South ran Washington DC.
Washington was a tool of the South, to accomplish whatever they wished:
That means all blubbering nonsense from DiogenesLamp & others about how the South felt so "oppressed" or "disparaged" is just ridiculous, since the South controlled the majority about 90% of the time, until 1861.
As such Southerners wrote the laws which today's pro-Confederates claim so "oppressed" them.
Sure, I "get" that y'all get off jerking each others', ah, chains over "North Evil, South Good" talk. Bla, bla, bla.
Sorry to be the one to tell you the truth on this, but here it is: the real distinction is not "North versus South".
Rather, it's "Big Cities versus small towns and rural".
Without exceptions, every so-called "Blue State", meaning Democrats rule, has small town and rural communities where people are just as traditional, Christian and kind-hearted as anyone elsewhere.
And every solid "Red State", meaning Republican majorities, has at least some big cities with plenty of Blue State values.
So, as in everything else you folks post, all this "North versus South" talk is just more nonsense.
Sorry, but the "delusions" are all yours.
The fact is, you don't know your own history, and that's what makes your own posts so "bizarre".
In early 1861, the United States Army totaled around 17,000 men, most scattered in small forts out west.
If you wished to compare those to today, the 1860 population was roughly 30 million, today's about 300 million, meaning ten times more.
So 17,000 in 1861 equates to 170,000 today, which is 1/3 of today's actual deeply depleted strength and it's even one third less than the 270,000 of pre-wwii 1940.
In other words, the US in 1861 was less prepared for war than we were in 1940!
By sharp contrast, one of the Confederacy's first acts, in March 1861 even before Lincoln's inauguration, was to call up 100,000 men, a call young Southerners eagerly responded to.
At that same time, Jefferson Davis ordered preparations for a military assault on Fort Sumter, such that by April 12, Confederates had gathered up 5,000 men on 4,000 guns and mortars to assault 85 Union troops with 21 guns in the fort.
Of course, Confederates were short of ammo, but still had enough to do the job of forcing Major Anderson's surrender.
So, by April 12, 1861 the Confederate army outnumbered the entire Union army nearly six to one, and at Fort Sumter nearly sixty to one.
HangUpNow: "Lincoln-the-Fascist coerced by bloody force those whose FREE WILL and personal/State sovereignty were violated."
Total rubbish, garbage talk of the worst kind.
In fact, the Confederacy was left totally free to do whatever it wanted, until it started and declared war on the United States.
HangUpNow: "He also violated the rights of many young men in the North of whom did not want to be drafted just to bleed and die for Lincoln's puppetmeister Yankee Elites."
In fact, from the beginning, state militias were drafted in every US war, and President Madison first proposed a national draft for the War of 1812, which Congress then did not think necessary.
But Congress did think a national draft necessary for the Civil War, and so authorized it.
Nothing unconstitutional, illegal or "violating" about a draft in wartime.
(Sigh), as I've repeatedly explained, none of those states, and no founder ever suggested unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession "at pleasure" or "for light and transient causes" were considered constitutional, lawful or appropriate.
And yet, that is just what happened beginning in December, 1860.
rustbucket: "Madison’s reply to Patrick Henry: An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, which deserves to be attended to.
If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence."
Assuming your quote is authentic, confirmed by Madison himself?
Regardless, as I (sigh) posted before, that word "dissatisfied" can mean anything from "light and transient" to nearly mortal.
At no time did either Madison or any other Founder suggest "light and transient" dissatisfaction was adequate to justify secession "at pleasure".
rustbucket quoting Madison: "Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union."
Again, the definition of "public happiness"?
The Founders' Declaration of Independence gives a long list of reasons for total public unhappiness necessary to justify Independence.
Did even one of those conditions apply in 1860?
No they did not, and so the Founders' criteria for lawful secession were never met in 1860.
rustbucket quoting PeaRidge: "DeBow and Kettel have done excellent work on pulling together the entire data listings.
That data shows the Southern contributions to export value in the 75 to 87#% range depending on year."
I've seen nothing to confirm those numbers and much to dispute them.
My post # 317 among others links to sources which lead me to believe Southern exports, while certainly important (50+%) were nowhere near the overwhelming percentages (75% to 87%) often claimed.
Further, stop just a minute and consider this question: when you say "the South" which South do you mean?
Just the Deep South?
Both the Deep and Upper South, the Confederacy?
Or Deep, Upper and Border South?
If you add in the Border South, you can goose those numbers higher, but at the price of claiming Union states for "the South".
rustbucket: "imported manufactured goods generally paid 24 to 32 percent tariff rate under the 1857 tariff law, not the 15% you quoted."
What, do you suppose I make these numbers up?
That 15% average number comes from here, and is readily compared to averages from earlier and later years.
It also compares to reports that the Confederacy's average tariffs (which were seldom collected) were also 15%.
rustbucket: " I asked him why he was posting stuff that had been clearly refuted.
He said that he was posting to the lurkers.
Is that what you are doing, BroJoeK?"
Certainly not, and the differences are:
You have never refuted any of my recent posts (I grant you Harriet Lane) while I have refuted all of yours, refutations which you always refuse to acknowledge.
I assume your problem is that after, ahem, a certain age, people just won't learn anything new, but I'm patient and will keep at it as long as able... ;-)
But the question on the table is whether our Founders' Original Intent was that states could "at pleasure" unilaterally declare secession.
I've seen nothing to support claims they did.
Sure, some did, but the majority of Northern opinion was actually closer to that of Democrat President Buchanan.
Buchanan believed, and said so, that the Constitution does not legitimize unilateral unapproved state declarations of secession, but that the Federal Government could not do anything to stop them.
Incoming President Lincoln also followed that line of reasoning, in his Inaugural telling secessionists:
But, of course, secessionists had every reason to start war, and so they did, at Fort Sumter.
That changed everything.
PeaBrain speaking of Northern economic interests: "Or they would trump up some fake reasons to go to war and attempt to destroy the competitor."
But as it happened, there was no need for any "trump up", since Confederates were already eager to start war and took the first excuse they could, then quickly declared war and sent military aid to Confederates in Union states, thus sealing their ultimate fate.
And as a result, "war fever" became just as great amongst average Northerners as it had been among Fire Eater Confederates.
Sure I "get" that you've been thoroughly victimized by modern education into buying Marxist propaganda, hook line & sinker.
Here's what you need to understand.
Outside of Ten Commandments and other such biblical injunctions, all laws are man-made, all are imperfect in both conception and results.
And all generally followed from bad results after people did what they thought was a good thing, certainly good for them.
So the first questions we need to ask are, did these alleged "robber barons" break existing laws of their time, or were laws written after the fact to stop what voters saw as unhappy results?
Second, if "robber barons" did allegedly break existing laws, were they prosecuted and what were the results?
Third, how much of "robber barons" wealth came from legitimate business practices, inventions and negotiations versus their criminal behavior?
My guess is that an objective look would reveal less "robber" and more hard work under the laws of the time.
Indeed, I'd apply the same moral standards as to antebellum slave-holders: most obeyed the laws most of the time, and so should not be condemned if the laws themselves were unjust or just inadequate.
In Northern states slavery was abolished peacefully and gradually, no need for violence or confiscations of property.
Likewise with "robber barons" -- if laws needed to be changed, or better enforced, I would not automatically condemn people who did their best under existing standards.
DiogenesLamp: "I said there appears to have been a massive increase in corruption that seems to have began with the Civil War.
I conjecture that it is the crony capitalism that initiated the war which redefined the normal way of doing business subsequent to the war."
I have no problems with conjecture or speculations, so long as they are identified as such.
Everyone has a right to their opinions...
But I've seen nothing in the way of facts or statistics to justify your conjecture here.
DiogenesLamp: "This did not make any sense to me until I learned of how the laws were jiggered to favor the New England States and New England ships and shipping.
I then realized a bunch of that trade would be effectively shut off and redistributed to Southern ports if the South became a separate nation."
But here's the key fact you need to understand: Federal laws were not jiggered against the South, period.
And the reason is simple: the South ran Washington DC.
No laws got passed or "jiggered" without Southern approval.
Further the mechanism by which minority Southerners ruled in Washington DC was their political alliance with Northern Big-City Democrat bosses, i.e., Tammany Hall.
So the Slave-Power and Tammany Hall wrote laws to suit themselves, and you claim post-war corruption was greater?
I don't think so.
And you claim the South didn't like those laws?
No again.
DiogenesLamp: "The only way their financial problems could be remedied was to stop the South from becoming independent, and so I believe they brought every possible pressure to bear on Lincoln in an effort to convince Him to stop the South from forming it's own nation. "
More conjecture & speculation, right?
In fact, Lincoln made no efforts before Fort Sumter to stop anything, and that's just what he told secessionists in his first inaugural.
Neither did Lincoln's predecessor, Buchanan, but Buchanan did attempt to resupply Fort Sumter in January, which Lincoln again attempted in April.
In January Buchanan's resupply ship after receiving secessionist artillery fire simply withdrew, no further actions.
But in April Confederates were better prepared for a much stronger military operation, and so started Civil War.
DiogenesLamp: "The Blockade wasn't created for any significant military purpose, it was created entirely for economic reasons.
It was created entirely to keep European economic trade from being established with the South, to the detriment of New England Trade."
More conjecture & speculation.
In fact, General Scott's "Anaconda Plan" was created years before the war -- indeed former Secretary of War Jefferson Davis may well have been aware of it.
It's purposes were both military and economic, but for the first year and more it was largely ineffective, since up to 90% of the ships which tried to run it got through.
Therefore the South's economy was not significantly affected by the blockade.
It was however very seriously changed by Confederates' own embargo on cotton exports, resulting in eventual burning of 2.5 million bales -- half an annual crop.
The Confederate economy also dramatically changed when converted from cotton growing to food production for the Army.
Finally, here's a key point for you to grasp: between April 1861 and April 1865 the Confederacy on any day could have stopped the war on much better terms than the "unconditional surrender" they received at Appomattox Court House.
Any and all the economic issues you claim were so important to them could have been reasonably negotiated away, but they never did.
And the reason is?
Because all such issues are not what really mattered to Confederate ruling elites.
Did you imagine that argument makes sense?
It doesn't, you know.
What makes sense is that Virginia's secession convention had already voted not to secede, but remained in secession, waiting for some Federal action which might justify changing their vote.
Lincoln wanted the Virginia convention to adjourn and go home, and offered them to abandon Fort Sumter if they did.
"A fort for a state" was Lincoln's proposal.
But Virginians turned down his offer, Jefferson Davis ordered war to begin at Fort Sumter and Virginians used war as their excuse to declare secession and join the Confederate war against the United States.
So the rest of your argument is just incoherent nonsense.
DiogenesLamp: "If they have a right to do so, and Lincoln refuses to let them because he doesn't find the deal satisfying, then that is corrupt. "
Lincoln didn't "refuse to let them" go.
Virginia's secession convention had already voted not to secede, and Lincoln simply wanted them to adjourn and go home, go you "get" that?
But Virginians said "no" and the rest is history.
Lincoln refused nothing.
But in fact, they had no causes whatever -- none, zero, nada.
It's not that their reasons were "light or transitory" it's that in fact they had no reasons, period.
In fact, in November 1860, when secessionists began to organize for secession, nothing had changed, nothing.
Their Democrats were still in charge of the Presidency, still a significant force in Congress and utterly dominated the Supreme Court.
Nothing actually bad had happened, and yet they began declaring secession, "at pleasure", meaning not approved by Founders Intent.
DiogenesLamp: "The Northern states had jiggered the laws to take profits away from them, and they wished to live under a government more to their liking, as was their right articulated by the Declaration of Independence. "
But Northern states did no such thing, since Southerners ruled in Washington DC and could have "re-jiggered" any laws they seriously disliked.
So the US government in 1860 was far from "destructive" it was entirely friendly and beneficial, because Southerners ruled it.
The only thing which changed then is the entirely constitutional election of the first Republican president, "Ape" Lincoln.
But Lincoln could not possibly be "destructive" in 1860, because he wasn't even in office.
The Deep South declared secession "at pleasure", period.
Can you cite the times when Southern representatives in Congress/Senate, or Southern born Presidents ever attempted to "re-jigger" those allegedly "anti-South" laws?
To my knowledge, it never happened which means all your conjecture and speculations on this are just that, fantasy.
And so you, ahem, conjecture that those allegedly "secret orders" which we don't know about somehow contradicted those other official orders which we do have on record?
I don't think so.
Links have been posted to copies of orders which confirmed Lincoln's message to SC Governor Pickens, that no Union troops would reinforce Fort Sumter if they met no resistance.
You give them far too little credit.
In fact, soldiers on both sides responded remarkably well to good leadership, and correspondingly to an absence of leadership -- funny how that works, even today, isn't it?
And leadership, especially American leadership, is also based on ideas and ideals, such as simple slogans like, "preserve the Union" and "free the slaves".
Soldiers don't necessarily need complicated or scholarly treatises, but they do need expressions they can hold in their minds when the going gets tough.
Never underestimate the power of ideas, even in ordinary people.
DiogenesLamp: "Other than the fact he launched a war over a D@mned fort he no longer had any legitimate use for?
Other than the fact that he immediately threw up that Economic Blockade which had no obvious military purpose?"
But, of course, it was Jefferson Davis who ordered the war, just as surely as the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.
And General Scott's Anaconda Plan, regardless off your ridiculous denials, had both military and economic reasons.
In fact, it hugely contributed to Confederate military defeat by slowly reducing exports & imports of weapons and other necessary war materials.
DiogenesLamp: "Which i've already pointed out to you is corrupt regarding either possible outcome.
You can't make a "deal" on an issue of principle.
If the states had a right to leave, Lincoln was violating that principle.
If the states had no right to leave, Lincoln was also violating *THAT* principle."
But your argument here is totally ludicrous, and the fact that you repeat it endlessly makes it no less so.
Literally, you're just jabbering nonsense, word salad with no coherent meaning.
So the real fact is that Lincoln did not dispute with the Virginia secession convention their "right" to vote on secession.
He merely offered them something of value to adjourn.
I'd call that typical political horse-trading, no more "corrupt" than much of what goes on, even today.
DiogenesLamp: "Dude, the "Gilded Age" is well known for being pretty much the most corrupt period in US History."
I think that's totally your liberal Marxist education/indoctrination at work here, serving to rot your brain from the inside out.
In fact there's no objective evidence showing greater lawlessness during the alleged "Gilded Age" than at any other time in human history.
I think all you've really done is use today's laws to convict people from by-gone eras of crimes that weren't even crimes at the time.
And the proof of my conclusion is simply this: every one of those wealthy "robber barons", without exception, had whole law firms at their instant disposal, dedicated first to keeping their operations legal, and second getting them out of legal trouble when it came.
So they met the standards of their day.
Only our day's higher standards can convict them, and then entirely unfairly.
DiogenesLamp: "Really? Perhaps you just didn't look very hard once you found the word "Slavery." "
Official "Reasons for Secession" were drawn up by South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas at the time of their secessions.
All focused heavily on slavery, some exclusively, mentioning nothing else of significance, including South Carolina's.
Here is a site that even attempts to put percentages on how much of the reasons were slavery, how much other issues.
But it's pretty ridiculous, because those "other issues" all relate back to slavery.
Tariffs are not even a category.
Even the South Carolina letter in your link is, by my count, concerned twice as much with slavery as with economics or tariffs.
Indeed, it's dated as "1861" meaning written well after South Carolina's actual declaration of secession, and likely just as the Morrill Tariff debate re-emerged in Congress.
In short, tariffs were an afterthought, not the original prime mover of secession.
That is enough now. My grandfathers went to war to repel Northern invaders. If there had been a few less hotheads like you in government at the time, slavery would have been ended without a million and a half casualties of war. All of the other Western Civilization nations ended slavery without civil war.
I have not had a Confederate flag or any CSA artifacts since I was 14 years old in the sixties, but I will stand for the right to show the flag in the cemeteries where Confederate War dead are buried. Your invade and conquer mentality is not the way of a civilized Republican.
But regardless of how often you post it, it's still irrelevant to this discussion, because that document only addresses, for certain legal purposes, when the US government first responded (still with words, not bullets!) to actual Confederate acts of war against it.
I take my instructions from the words of President Roosevelt on December 8, 1941 when he said:
Those same words could equally apply to Fort Sumter: since the Confederate assault on April 12, 1861 a state of war had existed.
Actual wars begin when soldiers battle enemies, not when politicians sign paperwork.
And as we've seen in more recent years, even years and years can pass by with one side fully engaged in war against and enemy who refuses to recognize war or respond in kind.
But it's still a war, even if we deny it.
Oh yeh,
;-)
Not irony, truth.
Indeed if you Marxist/Democrat/Alinskyite posers truly represent modern-day versions of Old-Time Confederates, then we have much to be thankful for in their "unconditional surrender".
;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.