If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?

Over the years I've heard many rail at the South for seceding from the 'glorious Union.' They claim that Jeff Davis and all Southerners were really nothing but traitors - and some of these people were born and raised in the South and should know better, but don't, thanks to their government school 'education.'

Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 deals in some detail with the question of Davis' alleged 'treason.' In referring to the Northern leaders he noted: "They believed the most logical means of justifying the North's war would be to have the federal government convict Davis of treason against the United States. Such a conviction must presuppose that the Confederate States could not have seceded from the Union; so convicting Davis would validate the war and make it morally legitimate."

Although this was the way the federal government planned to proceed, that prolific South-hater, Thaddeus Stevens, couldn't keep his mouth shut and he let the cat out of the bag. Stevens said: "The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy...This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern states were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war...No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union..." And, although he did not plainly say it, what Stevens really desired was that the Christian culture of the Old South be 'reformed' into something more compatible with his beliefs. No matter how you look at it, the feds tried to have it both ways - they claimed the South was in rebellion and had never been out of the Union, but then it had to do certain things to 'get back' into the Union it had never been out of. Strange, is it not, that the 'history' books never seem to pick up on this?

At any rate, the Northern government prepared to try President Davis for treason while it had him in prison. Mr. Conner has observed that: "The War Department presented its evidence for a treason trial against Davis to a famed jurist, Francis Lieber, for his analysis. Lieber pronounced 'Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten'." According to Mr. Conner, U.S. Attorney General James Speed appointed a renowned attorney, John J. Clifford, as his chief prosecutor. Clifford, after studying the government's evidence against Davis, withdrew from the case. He said he had 'grave doubts' about it. Not to be undone, Speed then appointed Richard Henry Dana, a prominent maritime lawyer, to the case. Mr. Dana also withdrew. He said basically, that as long as the North had won a military victory over the South, they should just be satisfied with that. In other words - "you won the war, boys, so don't push your luck beyond that."

Mr. Conner tells us that: "In 1866 President Johnson appointed a new U.S. attorney general, Henry Stanburg. But Stanburg wouldn't touch the case either. Thus had spoken the North's best and brightest jurists re the legitimacy of the War of Northern Aggression - even though the Jefferson Davis case offered blinding fame to the prosecutor who could prove that the South had seceded unconstitutionally." None of these bright lights from the North would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. It's not that they were dumb, in fact the reverse is true. These men knew a dead horse when they saw it and were not about to climb aboard and attempt to ride it across the treacherous stream of illegal secession. They knew better. In fact, a Northerner from New York, Charles O'Connor, became the legal counsel for Jeff Davis - without charge. That, plus the celebrity jurists from the North that refused to touch the case, told the federal government that they really had no case against Davis or secession and that Davis was merely being held as a political prisoner.

Author Richard Street, writing in The Civil War back in the 1950s said exactly the same thing. Referring to Jeff Davis, Street wrote: "He was imprisoned after the war, was never brought to trial. The North didn't dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no 'rebellion' and that the South had got a raw deal." At one point the government intimated that it would be willing to offer Davis a pardon, should he ask for one. Davis refused that and he demanded that the government either give him a pardon or give him a trial, or admit that they had dealt unjustly with him. Mr. Street said: "He died 'unpardoned' by a government that was leery of giving him a public hearing." If Davis was as guilty as they claimed, why no trial???

Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute. The fact that they diddled around and finally released him without benefit of the trial he wanted proves that the North had no real case against secession. Over 600,000 boys, both North and South, were killed or maimed so the North could fight a war of conquest over something that the South did that was neither illegal or wrong. Yet they claim the moral high ground because the 'freed' the slaves, a farce at best.

[nc 1374]

[nc] The president asked the black leaders to recruit volunteers for a government-financed pilot colonization project in Central America. If this worked, it could pave the way for the emigration of thousands more who might be freed by the war.

[nc]Most black spokesmen in the North ridiculed Lincoln's proposal and denounced its author. "This is our country as much as it is yours," a Philadelphia Negro told the president, "and we will not leave it." Frederick Douglass accused Lincoln of, "contempt for negroes" and "canting hypocrisy." The president's remarks, said Douglass, would encourage "ignorant and base" white men "to commit all kinds of violence and outrage upon the colored people."

[Walt] Not exactly a revelation. President Lincoln always made clear that his first duty was to save the Union.

So let me get this straight Walt. You are saying that as long as Lincoln thought it would save the Union, you would support the forced expulsion or deportation of Blacks or all non-whites from the United States, including Blacks and non-whites who were citizens of the United States.

Correct me if I have misinterpreted what you just said.

====

[Walt 1377]

You might want to rephrase that so that it makes sense.

You seem to be suggesting that I apply my 21st century sensibilities to a 19th century situation. You want to entrap me, but you only embarrass yourself. It's silly to put our judgments on those people. We can however, look at what -they- said. They said that secession was treason. They said, many of them, that slavery was wrong. They might have wanted blacks out of the country entirely, but more and more people were coming to the conclusion that slavery was simply wrong and was no longer to be tolerated. President Lincoln was a very eloquent spokesman for this group.

As president Lincoln said over and over and over again, he only wanted to control the expansion of slavery. He likened the presence of slavery in certain states to finding a poisonous snake in your children's bed. Disturbing the snake might cause irreperable harm. But why on earth would you allow another snake into your other children's bed, when you could prevent it? And the Republicans had the votes -to- prevent it. And that is why the rebels tried to bolt. They aimed to follow the lawful outcome of an election they didn't like with bullets to obtain what they couldn't obtain by the rules. Rules, mind you, that THEY insisted on in the first place.

To call the insurgents heroes is grotesque.

Walt

=====

I guess what you said was so grotesque and embarrassing that you deny you said it, even though it is sitting there for all to see.

I did not ask you to apply any 21st century sensibilities to a 19th century situation. What you quoted of my earlier post speaks only of Lincoln's plan to colonize Black's out of the country and Black criticism of that plan.

Your response to that was: "Not exactly a revelation. President Lincoln always made clear that his first duty was to save the Union.

[Walt] It's silly to put our judgments on those people.

The only people mentioned are Lincoln and Douglass and an unidentified Phidelphia negro. Douglass is quoted.

[Walt] We can however, look at what -they- said. They said that secession was treason.

Would that be Lincoln or Douglass you are talking about?

[Walt] They said, many of them, that slavery was wrong.

Who is THEY? You were responding to a post that only mentions Lincoln and quotes Douglass.

Many of whom? Lincoln and Douglass both said slavery was wrong.

[Walt] They might have wanted blacks out of the country entirely,

WHO IS THEY THIS TIME?

Colinization was Lincoln's idea.

Douglass was staunchly opposed.

[Walt] but more and more people were coming to the conclusion that slavery was simply wrong and was no longer to be tolerated. President Lincoln was a very eloquent spokesman for this group.

LINCOLN was the one proposing to deport all Blacks.

[Walt] As president Lincoln said over and over and over again, he only wanted to control the expansion of slavery.

Lincoln said over and over again he wanted the territories to be free of ALL Blacks, and all colors but white.

Lincoln said the territories "should be the happy home of teeminbg millions of free, white, prosperous people, and no slave among them."

Lincoln said the territories "should be kept open for the homes of free white people."

Lincoln said "We want them [the territories] for the homes of free white people."

In defending his interest in the territories, Lincoln said to Douglas "I think we have some interest. I think that as white men we have. Do we not wish for an outlef for our surplus population, if I may so express myself." [You may so express yourself. Rock on, Abe.]

Lincoln said he wanted to deport the Blacks. That is what Douglass was arguing against in the quoted material to which you purport to respond.

[Walt] He likened the presence of slavery in certain states to finding a poisonous snake in your children's bed. Disturbing the snake might cause irreperable harm. But why on earth would you allow another snake into your other children's bed, when you could prevent it?

Lincoln said he wanted to deport the Blacks. That is what Douglass was arguing against in the quoted material to which you purport to respond.

[Walt] And the Republicans had the votes -to- prevent it. And that is why the rebels tried to bolt. They aimed to follow the lawful outcome of an election they didn't like with bullets to obtain what they couldn't obtain by the rules. Rules, mind you, that THEY insisted on in the first place.

Lincoln said he wanted to deport the Blacks. That is what Douglass was arguing against in the quoted material to which you purport to respond.

[Walt] To call the insurgents heroes is grotesque.

YOUR RESPONSE TO DOUGLASS'S CRITICISM OF LINCOLN'S PLAN TO COLONIZE BLACKS, EXCUSING LINCOLN THE PIMP ON THE GROUNDS THAT HE WAS JUST TRYING TO SAVE THE UNION, IS WHAT IS GROTESQUE.

I repeat again below the quote you are addressing. Where is the part about calling insurgents heroes?

Walt, you purport to respond to THIS, your quote from my prior post:

[nc 1374]

[nc] The president asked the black leaders to recruit volunteers for a government-financed pilot colonization project in Central America. If this worked, it could pave the way for the emigration of thousands more who might be freed by the war.

[nc] Most black spokesmen in the North ridiculed Lincoln's proposal and denounced its author. "This is our country as much as it is yours," a Philadelphia Negro told the president, "and we will not leave it." Frederick Douglass accused Lincoln of, "contempt for negroes" and "canting hypocrisy." The president's remarks, said Douglass, would encourage "ignorant and base" white men "to commit all kinds of violence and outrage upon the colored people."

When I was talking about inter-library loan, it was for the public library system. I requested Blackerby's book, but it wasn't on their computer system. I have a card I use occasionally at University of California at Santa Barbara, but I haven't been that way in a few months.

But back to an earlier point, do you consider Ervin Jordan Jr's work "scholarly." and if not, why not? He is an historian. For instance, Walter Williams is a well-known economist, but his history is weak (don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot that Williams has written about, especially his 2nd Amendment views). Here's an example:

In an esay entitled "What Led to the Civil War," Williams tries to make the point, like Adams and DiLorenzo, that the War was predicated primarilly on economic matters - specifically the Morrill Tariffs. He wrote,"Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs. That’s when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures."

Even DiLorenzo points out that the House passed the Morrill bill in the 1859-1860 session, and that the Senate was unable to pass the bill until March 1861, and only then because several of the Southern secessionists states withdrew their Senators. President James Buchanan signed the tariff bill into law! So Williams first two sentences are basically just plain wrong. And Williams also pulls a big boner with his last sentence, where he forgets to mention a huge difference between the two "constitutions":

CSA Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3 -
"3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."

When Williams, Adams, DiLorenzo, the Kennedys, and others start talking about the economic factors leading to Civil War, what they are doing is deflecting attention from the primary cause - the South did not want to give up slavery. People put great stock and effort into writing about Lincoln's motivations. Lincoln was reactive to events that overtook the previous administration. The southern States that seceded prior to Lincoln's inauguration were the movers and the shakers, and it is their leadership's motivation that should be studied in greater detail.

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.