Replies

BroJoeK
Nonsense, the constitutional arguments were addressed by our Founders, especially Madison, but none ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.

Lincoln’s position was the same as outgoing Democrat President Buchanan & others which was: states had no “right of secession” at pleasure, but the Union should do nothing militarily to stop them.

Nonsense. The 10th amendment was added to ensure that nobody could claim that the federal government was delegated powers not stated in the constitution by the Sovereign states and 3 states made express reservations of their right to unilateral secession. Furthermore, several presidents thought states did have the right to secede.

“The future inhabitants of [both] the Atlantic and Mississippi states will be our sons. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove otherwise; and if they see their interest in separating why should we take sides? God bless them both, and keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better.” – Thomas Jefferson

“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation” over “union,” “I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’” Thomas Jefferson

In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, “It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw.”

A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, supports this view. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed. —William Rawle, Chapter 32, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America

Another who agreed that states did have that right was Ulysses S Grant:
“If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.” (The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, Old Saybrook, Connecticut: Konecky & Konecky, 1992, reprint, p. 131)
“If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted.” (The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, p. 130)

President John Tyler likewise believed a state had the right to leave the Union. So did President John Quincy Adams who tried to organize the New England states to secede in the 1820’s.

As for James Buchanan,he thought the federal government had no right to use force to prevent secession:

United States President James Buchanan, Fourth Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union December 3, 1860: “The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force.”

The Northern Federalists’ Hartford Convention declared in 1814 that a state had the right to secede in cases of “absolute necessity” (Alan Brinkley, Richard Current, Frank Freidel, and T. Harry Williams, American History: A Survey, Eighth Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991, p. 230).

BroJoeK
But in effect Founders had already been declared independent by the Brits — that’s what a declaration of rebellion & war is.
It means they are no longer governed by British law and must be defeated militarily.
So our Founders merely recognized the “secession” Brits had already declared them in.
And there was nothing even remotely resembling those 1776 conditions in late 1860 or early 1861.

Uhh no. The Brits did not recognize any legal separation or independence by the colonies. That’s why they went to the trouble of sending troops after all.

1776 was the same as 1860-61 except the colonies had never been recognized as sovereign while the states had. If anything, the secessions/declarations of independence of 1860-61 were on much firmer legal ground.

BroJoeK
In fact our Founders had no “legal footing” at all — zero, zip, nada footing — except, except the one thing that truly mattered: necessity.
They were declared outlaws — outside the law and subject to hanging if captured.
The only issue was, as Patrick Henry expressed: “liberty or death”.
So they chose liberty.
And nothing remotely resembling that 1776 situation existed in late 1860 or early 1861.

The sovereign states determined they had “necessity” just as the colonies did before them. The situations were analogous in many ways as Robert Barnwell Rhett laid out in his address which was attached to South Carolina’s Declaration of Causes. In both cases, the minority was being taxed by the majority for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of the minority community and the votes of the minority (the Brits offered a few seats in Parliament) were insufficient to protect them from this economic exploitation for others’ benefit.

BroJoeK
You have it exactly backwards.
By 1776 the Brits had taken up arms against our Founders, revoked their charters of self government, declared them in rebellion and waging war:

“... 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...”

So in 1776 “secession” (our Founders said “disunion”) was already a fact accomplished by Brits making their Declaration a necessity.

No you have it backwards. The Colonies refused to be governed by the Brits any longer and took up arms against them in 1775. They weren’t even sovereign like the states were. Their power to determine “necessity” was no greater than that of the sovereign states of their grandchildren 85 years later.

BroJoeK
Sorry, my fault for assuming you understand the basics of American history, will try not to do that again.

The one who obviously lacks historical knowledge here is you.

BroJoeK
1788 was the year our Founders “seceded” from the old Articles of Confederation by mutual consent to adopt their new Constitution instead.
Necessity and mutual consent are the two (and only two) legitimate reasons our Founders acknowledged for dissolving one polity and forming a new one.
Neither condition existed in late 1860 or early 1861.

Patently false. They had after all seceded from the British Empire in 1776 without consent.

BroJoeK
There is no language recognizing the states as “sovereign” under the US Constitution, just the opposite.

The sovereignty of each was recognized by name in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. It was recognized by the Constitution’s two biggest Cheerleaders Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. It has been recognized numerous times in by the SCOTUS. You have absolutely no historical backing for this argument.

BroJoeK
So the Fire Eaters & secessionists of 1860 claimed, but in fact our Founders had a very clear idea of what the word “necessity” implied, it meant what they experienced in 1776 and was starkly contrasted with “at pleasure” declarations which no Founder ever supported.

It is up to each state to determine necessity for itself. Its nonsensical to argue that a colony which was not sovereign could determine necessity for itself but a state which was sovereign could not.

BroJoeK
Wrong, every text supports it and no text contradicts it.
There is simply no example of any Founder ever supporting unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
All assumed that disunion could only come from mutual consent (i.e., 1788) or serious necessity (1776).
Neither condition existed in late 1860 or early 1861.

WRONG. See the quotes above. The artificial distinction you are trying to draw between 1776 and 1861 for the same act is laughable. The Brits never consented to the secession of the colonies prior to the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Yet the colonies declared independence anyway. So much for it being mutual.

BroJoeK
No more an act of “aggression” than the US today sending “heavily armed flotillas” to resupply or reinforce the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Communist Cubans don’t like it, don’t recognize our right to be there, but if they start war over it, that’s on them, just as the Civil War is on Jefferson Davis.

Nope! The US has a signed treaty with Cuba in which the terms of a perpetual lease of Gitmo are laid out in 1903. The analogy would be the Brits maintaining a fortress in a major harbor like NY after the 13 colonies’ secession from the British Empire, not a signed treaty between two sovereign countries for a lease.

BroJoeK
Of course he did.
Brits remained in New York City for two years after their “unconditional surrender” at Yorktown.
They even lingered for four months after receiving orders to evacuate.
Washington was patient, and waited for negotiations to take their course.

And New York City was far from the only place Brits left their forts & troops on US territory.
In upstate New York, Ohio and Michigan the Brits still had dozens of forts and trading posts for 15 years until finally negotiated away by John Jay, in 1796.

The fact is that neither George Washington nor any other Founder after 1781 ever used British forts & troops on US territory as excuse for starting war.
Only Jefferson Davis considered that a matter of Confederate “integrity” being “assailed” and reason enough to launch Civil War.

The Brits were required to pull their troops out of US Territory in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. That was 2 years after Yorktown. The Brits did leave some troops in border areas and yes that was a source of friction. There was still wrangling over compensation to be paid to loyalists who had had their property seized also.....mainly the Colonies had not coughed up the money agreed to compensate them. It did take further negotiations for both sides to live up to all the terms they had agreed to years earlier.

It was Lincoln who started the war and furthermore he did so deliberately.

“Lincoln and the First Shot” (in Reassessing the Presidency, edited by John Denson), John Denson painstakingly shows how Lincoln maneuvered the Confederates into firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. As the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861, “Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor” by re-provisioning Fort Sumter. On the day before that the Jersey City American Statesman wrote that “This unarmed vessel, it is well understood, is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South.” Lincoln’s personal secretaries, John Nicolay and John Hay, clearly stated after the war that Lincoln successfully duped the Confederates into firing on Fort Sumter. And as Shelby Foote wrote in The Civil War, “Lincoln had maneuvered [the Confederates] into the position of having either to back down or else to fire the first shot of the war.”

Lincoln’s letter to his naval commander congratulating him for starting the war:

” , May 1st, 1861. Washington
Capt. G.V. Fox:
My Dear Sir, I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground ; while, by an accident, for which you were in nowise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent, was, you were deprived of a war-vessel, with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.
I most cheerfully and truthfully declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.
Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN.”

FLT-bird mis-quoting: "If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation' over 'union,' 'I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’ " --Thomas Jefferson"

The internet is chock full of fake Jefferson quotes, and on the face of it this appears to be one, else, why the phrase "over 'union' " inserted?

Yes, Jefferson is reported to have spoken kindly of Northern secession at the time of the Hartford Convention (1815) but when faced with real secession of his old Vice President, Aaron Burr, Jefferson had Burr arrested and tried for treason.

So Jefferson himself demonstrated Founders supported disunion by mutual consent but not unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.

FLT-bird quoting: "Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, 'It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw."

Peacefully via mutual consent.
No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
And as it happened, in early 1861 Deep South Fire Eaters did "withdraw" more-or-less peacefully.

FLT-bird: "A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, supports this view."

Proving only that secessionist propaganda could be found almost anywhere.
In fact, no Founder supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
Instead, they considered mutual consent or necessity as required for disunion.

FLT-bird quoting Grant: "If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers."

In fact, our Founders understood clearly the distinction between peaceful disunion by mutual consent (as in 1788) versus rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion & treason.
Their new Constitution provides for defense against those latter events.

FLT-bird: "President John Tyler likewise believed a state had the right to leave the Union.
So did President John Quincy Adams who tried to organize the New England states to secede in the 1820’s."

President John Tyler was a Virginian, slave-holder and Confederate Congressman who unsurprisingly sympathized with secession arguments.

John Quincy Adams was Secretary of State under Prsident Monroe from 1817 to 1825 and US President from 1825 to 1829, so can't imagine what your claim here represents.
On the contrary, according to this analysis:

"In Adams’ formulation, 'We, the People' of the American Union had again come together, as surely as they had to throw off the despotic rule of George III, to throw off the Articles of Confederation.
Adams derided states’ rights as 'grossly immoral,' and the 'dishonest doctrine of despotic stare sovereignty.'
Those who advanced it were advocating a theory of government that stood in direct opposition to the principles of the Founding Era.[9]"

Young John Quincy Adams was a Founding Son, and the furthest possible from closet secessionist.
Old John Q gave young Congressman Abraham Lincoln advice on "contraband of war" which helped Old Abe write the Emancipation Proclamation.

FLT-bird quoting President Buchanan in 1860 on Congress & Union: "...the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force."

Buchanan also argued that unilateral unapproved secession at pleasure was unconstitutional & illegal.

FLT-bird: "The Northern Federalists’ Hartford Convention declared in 1814 that a state had the right to secede in cases of 'absolute necessity' "

Exactly, that is my argument here: mutual consent (as in 1788) and necessity (as in 1776) are the two, and only two, legitimate reasons for disunion.
Neither condition existed in late 1860 and early 1861.

FLT-bird: "The Brits did not recognize any legal separation or independence by the colonies.
That’s why they went to the trouble of sending troops after all."

In 1774 Brits revoked the Massachusetts charter of self-government of 1691 and in 1775 declared the colonies in rebellion -- essentially a declaration of war and death sentence on our Founders.
That's as clear a separation as can be imagined.

FLT-bird: "The sovereign states determined they had 'necessity' just as the colonies did before them.
The situations were analogous in many ways "

But in 1776 necessity was clear & present to our Founders -- as clear as a rope around their necks.
Nothing remotely resembling such necessity existed in late 1860 & early 1861.

FLT-bird: "The situations were analogous in many ways as Robert Barnwell Rhett laid out in his address which was attached to South Carolina’s Declaration of Causes."

In 1776 our Founders laid out about two dozen material reasons for their separation from Britain.
Not a single one of those reasons applied to 1860 secessionists.

FLT-bird: "In both cases, the minority was being taxed by the majority for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of the minority community and the votes of the minority (the Brits offered a few seats in Parliament) were insufficient to protect them from this economic exploitation for others’ benefit."

The Brits did discuss American complaints about "taxation without representation" but offered nothing.
In 1860 Deep South slavers were not only represented in Congress, but over-represented due to the Constitution's 3/5 rule.
So there is no legitimate comparison -- zero, zip, nada legit -- between 1776 and 1860.

FLT-bird: "No you have it backwards.
The Colonies refused to be governed by the Brits any longer and took up arms against them in 1775.
They weren’t even sovereign like the states were."

Brits began separating themselves from their American colonies by (among others, see DOI):

Imposing taxation without representation.
Revoking Massachusetts' 1691 Charter of self-government.
Imposing British troops on colonists.
Declaring colonies in rebellion.
Taking military actions against colonial militias.

Through those acts & others Brits lost any claim to legitimate rule.
Nothing remotely resembling that existed in 1860.

FLT-bird: "The one who obviously lacks historical knowledge here is you."

I do note you've collected many of the standard Lost Causer proof-texts, but otherwise seem oblivious to what actually happened in either 1776 or 1860.

FLT-bird: "Patently false.
They had after all seceded from the British Empire in 1776 without consent."

Right, they separated from necessity which along with mutual consent they considered valid reasons for disunion.
No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.

FLT-bird: "The sovereignty of each was recognized by name in the 1783 Treaty of Paris."

But not in the new US Constitution of 1787.
Just the opposite, the Constitution provides for Federal response to rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion and/or treason.

FLT-bird: "It was recognized by the Constitution’s two biggest Cheerleaders Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers."

Then you will provide us with proof-texts for this claim?

FLT-bird: "It is up to each state to determine necessity for itself.
Its nonsensical to argue..."

It is certainly nonsensical to argue, as you do, the equation of conditions in 1776 with those of 1860.
There was no similarity whatever.
Founders clearly understood the distinctions between true necessity and unjustified actions at pleasure.

FLT-bird: "WRONG.
See the quotes above.
The artificial distinction you are trying to draw between 1776 and 1861 for the same act is laughable. "

Sorry, but none of your proof-texts actually support your argument.
They are irrelevant to it.

And what's laughable are your efforts to make an equation of 1776 and 1860.

FLT-bird: "Nope! The US has a signed treaty with Cuba in which the terms of a perpetual lease of Gitmo are laid out in 1903."

And South Carolina deeded land to the Federal Government for Fort Sumter.
Then, just like Cubans today, they declared Federal ownership illegitimate, but unlike Cubans who have not started war over Gitmo, Confederates used Fort Sumter as their excuse to start Civil War.

FLT-bird: "The analogy would be the Brits maintaining a fortress in a major harbor like NY after the 13 colonies’ secession from the British Empire, "

And Brits did maintain forces in New York City, along with dozens of forts & trading posts in New York, Ohio and Michigan for years after their 1781 Unconditional Surrender at Yorktown.
No Founding president used those Brit forts as their excuse to start another war, unlike Jefferson Davis in 1861.

FLT-bird: "The Brits did leave some troops in border areas and yes that was a source of friction."

But unlike Jefferson Davis no Founding President used those British forts, forces & trading posts as excuses to start a war.

FLT-bird: "And as Shelby Foote wrote in The Civil War, 'Lincoln had maneuvered [the Confederates] into the position of having either to back down or else to fire the first shot of the war.' "

It's still rubbish, regardless of how many parrot it.
In fact, Lincoln's duty was to resupply Fort Sumter just as President Buchanan had attempted in January, 1861.
Jefferson Davis' decision to use Lincoln's mission as his excuse to start Civil War was Davis' and his cabinet's alone.
And they all knew the consequences:

"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."[15]

FLT-bird quoting Lincoln to Fox: "I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort Sumter..."

That's the important part: Lincoln regrets failing to resupply Fort Sumter.
That he finds some consolation in Jefferson Davis' decision to start Civil War is not surprising, but cannot be called the reason for Lincoln's resupply mission.

Take the weekend off for Easter and look at what happens.

I will say, Bird, that I've been watching these Civil War threads for several years now and I've never seen anyone so comfortable in their own ignorance as you seem to be. Rather than refute your same nonsense yet again, I see that you added a few claims so I think I'll concentrate on those.

“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation” over “union,” “I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’” Thomas Jefferson

Your mastery of partial quotes is impressive, and at least you offer some documentation which, on the face of it, seems to support your claim. But let's look at the quote in full, shall we?

It's from a June 20, 1816 letter to William Crawford discussing the economic direction of the country. The quote, in context, is: "In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose : 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, "let us separate." I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture."

So Jefferson is talking about separation based on a specific issue, not merely leaving in a snit. But if we look at the words used - "let us separate" - then is there anyone foolish enough to conclude that Jefferson is talking about a mutual decision? One where both sides, after discussions, agree that it's best to go their separate ways? In your other Jefferson quote about separating, has the same connotation; peaceful partition based on a mutual decision. Which is as it should be, and as I have been saying all along. Secession is a mutual decision and requires the agreement of both sides - those staying as well as those going. Because only through mutual agreement and after the resolution of issues of possible contention can it be peaceful. The alternative is the one the South chose, separation through war. And do you honestly believe that's what Jefferson would have wanted? None of his quotes would indicate that.

A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, supports this view.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that Rawle's book was only used for a very short time at West Point, let's still look at what Rawle said. This is from Chapter 32 of Rawle's book titled "Of The Permanence of the Union":

"The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hld the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express provision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them."

So my question to you would be when did the Southern states incorporate provision in each of their state Constitutions? Month and year for each would be sufficient.

"f they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers."

Again let's look at the quote in context. What Grant said was this: "The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers." In other words, Grant is non saying that the South had a Constitutional right to leave. He's saying there was no remedy in the Constitution, so their actions were illegal. This is borne out by this Grant quote from his memoires: “Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship—on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror—must be the result."

The South resorted to rebellion. They rolled the dice and lost.

“The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force.”

And you breezed right by this part of the message, didn't you?

"The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain. It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance to such a theory."