Replies

Southerners appear to have been wanting independence for many decades prior to the Civil War, so you could hardly call them "rash".

Democrats had controlled the country for decades, and Southerners by and large controlled the Democratic Party. 3/4ths of the Whig presidents had also been born in the South. The country had fought a war that got vast territories from Mexico and the assumption was that slaveowners would get their share of those territories.

There were also plans to acquire Cuba and possibly other Spanish and Mexican territories. Those plans fell through, but cotton prices were high. The only problem was the anti-slavery agitation, which only really became widespread after the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854).

Secessionist agitation flared up on occasion. There were some politicians and agitators who jumped in at every opening to clamor for disunion, but most Southerners, and even most slaveowners weren't longing for secession for decades.

Madison was not the authority which granted the Constitution it's powers, and what he believed is irrelevant when compared to what the people ratifying the document believed.

Clearly, what Madison and other Framers believed the Constitution meant was relevant to what the Constitution meant.

With three states making it quite clear they believed secession was legal, (and for that matter, see Madison's quotes up above) and the other states not objecting, it is quite reasonable to believe that secession was legal under the Constitution and that nothing in it contradicted the Declaration of Independence.

Hamilton and Jay explained to the New York ratifying convention that ratification meant adopting the Constitution "in toto." If the convention didn't want that, they were free not to ratify. One reason the other states didn't object was because most of their conventions had already ratified the constitution and gone home.

Other states that included reservations in their ratifications refered to the right of revolution or to the people reasserting the power they had delegated. They didn't advocate any specific procedure for that happening.

In fact, you have to reach a lot to suggest there is any evidence that secession was illegal. The bulk of the evidence is on the side of legal.

People weren't talking that much in the early days of the Constitution about whether unilateral state secession was legal. The theorizing -- pro and con -- came later.

Meaning they recognized it as a right which they chose not to exercise.

Your logic is faulty. Voting to reject a plan doesn't mean the plan is legal or feasible. Ridiculous and unconstitutional schemes are rejected every year by Congress. That doesn't mean those schemes were constitutional (Sometimes Congress approves ridiculous and unconstitutional schemes, which means they want them to be constitutional, but doesn't prove that they are).

Simon Cameron was very corrupt, but Lincoln's reaction tends to make you think he didn't see it as that big of a deal.

There was a war on. Everyone in the Cabinet had a constituency back home that Lincoln feared displeasing. As it was, Cameron didn't even last a year as Secretary of War before he was replaced by Stanton, who had been a Democrat.

One thing I've learned in the last few years is that presidents say all kinds of stupid things in private when they think they aren't being recorded (and sometimes in public when they ought to realize that they are being recorded). Using stray comments as evidence for serious and damning judgments can lead to false or inaccurate or unproven conclusions.

The same sort of responsibility that slaves would have for their work in making their masters wealthy.

That is why people wonder about you. Slaveowners were not the slaves of Washington or New York. Apart from being what some people would call obscene, that comparison is wildly inaccurate.

You've swallowed whole the slaveowner's argument that New York City was cheating them out of millions. In fact, a lot of cotton was shipped directly from Southern ports to Britain and to Europe. If Southerners objected to going through NYC, they could buy and crew ships, insure the ships and cargoes, and ensure timely delivery of cotton in good years and bad all by themselves and see how much that cut into slavery's profits.

The reason for going through NYC was so that ships wouldn't be empty coming over from Europe or Britain: the Southern market was that much smaller than the Northern. New York City also had experienced financial institutions that most slaveowners had no trouble dealing with at times when fear over the future of slavery wasn't a serious issue.

And Southerners, as I've said above, largely controlled DC before the Civil War -- or at least before the reaction to Kansas-Nebraska temporarily cost them control of the House. Southerners got their fair share out of government appropriations. Any stealing or corruption would have been as much Southern as Northern in origin.

DiogenesLamp: "Southerners appear to have been wanting independence for many decades prior to the Civil War, so you could hardly call them "rash"."

x: "Democrats had controlled the country for decades, and Southerners by and large controlled the Democratic Party.
3/4ths of the Whig presidents had also been born in the South. "

Here again, Democrat DiogenesLamp well knows the truth, but refuses to acknowledge it because the facts don't fit his narrative.
The truth is a small minority of Southerners, known in the North as "Fire Eaters", had agitated for secession since at least 1850.
The most famous Fire Eaters were Edmund Ruffin (VA), Robert Rhett (SC), Louis T. Wigfall (TX), William Lowndes Yancey (AL), JDB DeBow (SC), John Pettus (MS), David Yulee (FL) and Nathaniel Tucker (VA) among others.

Fire Eaters' agitation was mostly silenced by the 1850 Compromise, which gave slavers everything they wanted, most notably, California US senate seats and Federal responsibility for fugitive slaves.
However, the demise of the Old Whig Party (circa 1854) and its replacement by anti-slavery Republicans lead to renewed Fire Eater threats of secession in 1856, should Republican abolitionist John Fremont become President.

In 1856 Democrats united, Fremont lost, Democrats regained majorities in Congress and in 1857 Doughfaced Pres. Buchanan worked with SCOTUS Chief Justice, Crazy Roger Taney, to concoct his Dred Scott opinions, expanding slavery and limiting Northern states' rights to abolish it.
Democrats also passed the record low Tariff of 1857.

So, by this point, early 1857, Southerners in general were totally happy with Washington, DC, and secessionist Fire Eaters were totally silent.
In 1859 Republicans gained a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, and began working for higher tariffs, but still there was no more talk of secession until the presidential campaign of 1860 split the majority Democrats and made Republican Lincoln the favorite.
Then again, as in 1856, Fire Eaters threatened secession if anti-slavery Republicans won the presidency.
Nobody threated secession over the proposed new Morrill Tariff.

And this is the key point here, which DiogenesLamp well knows, but refuses to acknowledge because it doesn't fit his pro-Confederate narrative -- Southern Democrats in, say, 1858, just as Democrats today, were totally happy with the United States provided they were ruling over it.
But by late 1860, once Democrats faced potential loss of political powers, especially relating to slavery, then Fire Eaters again began threatening secession, and when they lost the election in 1860, they immediately acted on those threats.

All this happened while Southern Democrats were still mostly in charge in Washington, DC, of the Presidency, the Senate and the Supreme Court, not to mention the US Army, Navy and Washington bureaucracy.

Yes, in 1860, just as today, it was in situ Democrats, then mostly Southerners, who corruptly ruled in Washington, DC, and when faced with future loss of political power, immediately declared secession and war against the United States.

All this DiogenesLamp well knows but refuses to acknowledge because he believes it's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant to DL because he has convinced himself that reasons don't matter, nothing matters except that Southerners wanted to secede, and therefore the rest of the country should have stood by and let it happen, regardless of provocations such as seizures of US forts in places like Charleston Harbor.

Clearly, what Madison and other Framers believed the Constitution meant was relevant to what the Constitution meant.

This statement is overly broad. What people have claimed Madison meant is contradicted by other evidence such as the ratification statements of New York, Virginia and Rhode Island.

One reason the other states didn't object was because most of their conventions had already ratified the constitution and gone home.

And no other legal body in the other states could make a statement on the point? You know, like the governors or legislatures? They could not say "We Disagree!"?

You are glossing over the fact that in terms of a provocative statement, silence is assent.

Didn't need to. With the founding document proclaiming it a right, the procedure was just for the states to resume governing themselves.

Your logic is faulty. Voting to reject a plan doesn't mean the plan is legal or feasible.

The contrary is also true. Rejecting a plan does not establish it as illegal.

That is why people wonder about you. Slaveowners were not the slaves of Washington or New York.

I'm thinking that is in the eye of the beholder. Finding out that 60% of their income went to DC and New York would tend to make someone think they are a slave or a servant.

You've swallowed whole the slaveowner's argument that New York City was cheating them out of millions.

I never knew about this aspect of the situation until BroJoeK posted one of his links that revealed New York was running the cotton trade, and the book he linked showed that New York and DC were getting about 60% of the total revenue from all Southern trade with Europe.

This was some years ago, and i'm sure the link is still on free republic, but it might be hard to find because it was in an old discussion.

If Southerners objected to going through NYC, they could buy and crew ships,...

This topic has been covered in past discussions regarding why all the shipping was controlled by New York. One significant factor was government subsidies payed to these Northern shipping companies, such as for mail delivery, which made their packet trade more profitable than a competing company from the south, and subsidies to the fishing ships. There was a fellow that commented in a discussion some years back, telling us that his family was heavily involved in the shipping trade and in the cotton shipping trade at exactly this period in history, and he went into some detail as to how they dominated everything.

The reason for going through NYC was so that ships wouldn't be empty coming over from Europe or Britain: the Southern market was that much smaller than the Northern.

That too was an artificial result partially caused by government manipulation of the markets. What do you suppose would have happened if the Southerners had 60% more money to spend and weren't required to use Northern shipping and other industries?

If the North kept the South down economically, wouldn't they have a smaller market as a result? Plus the stuff they bought because of government protectionist laws made them do business with the North and Northeast at a higher cost than they would have paid if not for government laws compelling them.

A pattern emerges of the government favoring the well to do businessmen of the North and giving them all sorts of economic incentives to maximize their profits.

Southerners got their fair share out of government appropriations.

That is contrary to what Robert Rhett and other Southerners who did the math said at the time. I recall reading one fellow who put an actual number on the money being transferred from the South to the North on the basis of government laws.

I don't recall the name, but I do recall he put a lot of work into it to get a precise number.