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

The Patriotist ^ | 2003 | Al Benson, Jr.

[Aurelius]

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.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Yes, all did abhor it.

Jefferson was not speaking of states leaving the Union, as you know, he was speaking of a newly unorganized expanse of lands which MIGHT POSSIBLY THINK of having an idea of exploring the possibility of maybe becoming a separate nation someday potentially conceivably.

Of course, that is as firm as any of your evidence gets, so run with it.

[Grand Old Partisan]

After leaving the presidency, George Washington refused to say Thomas Jefferson's name, referring to him only as "that man".

That in the 1800 election Alexander Hamilton backed Jefferson for the presidency over Aaron Burr is not so much a compliment to Jefferson as a recognition that Burr, the Clintonesque founder of Tammany Hall, was even worse.

[justshutupandtakeit]

None of those quotes changes any of my views of the federal/state relation. I agree with all those things perhaps my formulations have been inaccurate in that regard but none of the quotes show the formulation of a case's decision based upon upholding a litigant on the basis of the 9th or 10th which is what I am looking for. References to or discussions of the meanings of them are not enough.

States have some sovereignty, there is no argument from me about that, but not the sovereignty which would affect the other states. They can, for example, make any state election law about qualifications which is not inconsistent with constitutional guarantees. But they cannot elect a 25 yr. old Senator.

There is no legal authority for a state to make decisions or take actions which affect other states unless it is in accord with the U.S. Constitution.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Exactly. But these Jeffersonians of today pretend nothing like that ever happened.

Hamilton said that Jefferson at least had "pretensions" to integrity while Burr had none. One of the reasons he backed J. was also because he was a "temporizing" man. IOWs he would just let things slide hoping they would work themselves out without him having to make a decision. He hated conflict so much he hoped he wouldn't have to provoke it with hard decisions.

Of course, it didn't stop him from doing such things as reversing Federalist policy and trying to aid the French in reconquering the slaves of Haiti by stopping all trade by Americans with the island hoping to starve the poor wretches into submission. Slavers were as terrified by the Haitian Revolution as any event and even tried to suppress the papers reporting it for fear their own slaves would hear of it.

[GOPcapitalist]

You are still attempting to excuse away your error. State or not, Jefferson's letter indicates a willingness to divide the union under certain circumstances. You claimed that he thought otherwise on matters of splitting the union. No ammount of equivocation, excuse making, or other bullsh*t artistry will ever get you around the falsehood of that previous claim. My advice is therefore to choose your words more carefully from the start and avoid shooting your mouth off when you cannot support what you say.

[GOPcapitalist]

Your insistence on being right about everything -- even on a topic in which you are out of your depth -- is childish.

I only insist I am right where the facts say that I am right. On the topic of Hamilton, the facts and your own admissions say that he liked (1) federalized banks and monetary policy, (2) government project expenditures, (3) taxes, and (4) urbanized commercialization. You have made the claim that Hamilton's politics resemble Reagan, yet on every single one of those issues Reagan's beliefs and actions took him in the other direction. That makes your claim false, whether you desire to admit it or not. Further, the fact that you will not admit in in spite of the obvious, videlicet you are engaging in slothful induction, is indicative of your own insistence upon maintaining your own freedom from error on matters which you either know not or are unwilling to know the truth about for reasons other than those you profess.

[GOPcapitalist]

Andersonville. Belle Isle. Libby prison. In war, nobody has a monopoly on virtue.

Nobody professes to have such a monopoly, but the existence of complimentary abuses in no way excuses either, nor does it legitimize injustices committed during war.

But back to my original point, the yankees not only committed atrocities on a wide spread scale but also openly sanctioned them and encouraged them. That is why you can find them explicitly ordered in the dispatches of Sherman, Milroy, Butler and others to their troops.

[SolidSupplySide]

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."

This makes no sense. A trial would have established that secession was not unconstitutional? Then why did Texas v. White determine that secession *was* unconstitutional?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Newly bought territory was not "in the Union" as States were. Totally different institutional arrangements since it was not part of the Union as component states. The Union is composed of States, uh, like in the UNITed STATES of America. This is the best you can do?

J. was speaking of a hypothetical possibility and even in that regard no one would have agreed with it. Seems like half of his thoughts were meant to do nothing more than sound good. Who did he expect to take that goofiness seriously? Not even his own followers would have.

Certainly the slavers would not have given up the chance to clamp their control even more firmly over the Government which new States from Louisiana would have allowed. Now it is true that some Federalists would have been happy to dispense with a hoard of new Jeffersonians and had they suggested such a separation, J. would have back-tracked so fast his head would spin. LoL.

[WhiskeyPapa]

No -- and at least ONE of the same issues (and slavery was NOT one of them until midway through the thing when old disHonest Abe needed an emotional rallying cry to bouy up the spirits of the population of the North because they were getting their butts kicked at that point) which caused the War of Northern Aggression (commercial exploitation of the South by the North and States Rights vs. the federal behemouth) remains very much alive.

Slavery was always the cause of the war. Elimination of slavery became a Union war aim from about 1/1/63.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

...because they were getting their butts kicked at that point...

In point of fact, the rebels had no major success outside Virginia throughout the entire war, excepting Chickamauga.

And the famous Lee had as little success outside Virginia as Hooker, Pope and Burnside had within it.

Also, in the spring of 1864, over 100,000 Union soldiers re-enlisted. At the same time the rebel armies began to melt away.

Walt

[SolidSupplySide]

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?

Even the Radical Republicans refused to accept Stevens' arguments. Even Radical Republicans claimed that secession was illegal. Reconstruction was justified on the grounds that the federal government had the responsibility to ensure republican forms of government in the southern states. After the war, the federal government found no state governments (the officials had fled) and created a military government. To suggest Stevens' viewpoints were mainstream is absurd. To do that would be like quoting Ron Paul (R-TX) today and say he speaks for the dominant faction of today's Republican Party.

The author of this essay needs to brush up on history.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Yes, after their three-year enlistments ended, the vast majority of Union troops volutarily re-enlisted for the duration, while rebels, who had been impressed into the Confederate Army for the duration, began to melt away.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Excellent point. Thaddeus Stevens, who is one of four Republicans on the cover of my book, was never as powerful as neo-Confederates claim. Most of his proposals, including "forty acres and a mule", went nowhere.

[GOPcapitalist]

Newly bought territory was not "in the Union" as States were.

Nobody is suggesting that they were states yet. But (1) they were indeed in the union as territory and (2) Jefferson's quote clearly anticipates them being organized and settled, whereupon he believed they should make the decision to stay or leave based upon what was best for their future. No matter how you look at it, that quote contradicts YOUR poorly worded claim in which you claimed that Jefferson "abhorred" any attempt whatsoever that would split parts of the union.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Nothing more substantial to attack than this? This is proof of nothing other than J's tendency to shoot off his mouth without any concern about the effect.

Jefferson never said anything in support of splitting the Union or that it was legal and that quote does not prove otherwise particularly when he had held secessionist views up to ridicule in his inaugural speech. At any rate I was aware of this (just another of his goofy ideas, like, say, the gunboat navy) and it does not cause any real change in the view of J. or his disdain for secession. Jefferson never supported such an idea and this is not evidence to the contrary.

Had the Congress wished it certainly could have allowed this territory to stay outside the Union, even form a new country. But, even you won't claim that it would have been allowed to unilaterally declare independence, will you? Congress had all authority necessary to take steps and pass laws effectuating a separation. But it would have been lawful even Jeff. would have demanded no less.

[GOPcapitalist]

Nothing more substantial to attack than this?

Seeing as it effectively demonstrates the falsehood of your prior statement by directly contradicting it, it is all the substance that is required.

You simply do not like the fact that it contradicts your previous statement so now you desparately trying to find a way to excuse, ignore, or equivocate around it. Your behavior is not unlike that of a child playing a backyard game of soccer. Finding himself behind by a point, the child insists retroactively that the last goal "doesn't count" because he wasn't ready when it was scored and he had secretly invoked time out by forming his hands into a T shape behind his back shortly before the kick, unbeknownst to either his teammates or opponents.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It doesn't contradict it at all because it was addressing an entirely different issue. An amorphous mass of land without constitutional protection or responsibility is not the same as a state in a perpetual Union no matter how you twist it.

Not incorporating or remaining independent and going its own way is not the same as secession. Congress could have LEGALLY addressed any inclination of the territory to remain separate but would have never allowed part to become states then secede. Nor would Jefferson.

No statement by Jefferson that a STATE had the right to secede, I note.

The proper soccer analogy would be that you are unable to score so you pick up the ball and run with it cause "its all the same." "We can ignore silly distinctions and accept any inaccuracy or inappropriate analogy."

[GOPcapitalist]

It doesn't contradict it at all because it was addressing an entirely different issue.

You defined the issue as splitting the union. Allowing regions of the United States to the west of the mississippi to leave the United States at present or at some future time following further settlement and organization is, by ANY reasonable definition, splitting the union. Jefferson's quote supports this position thus it also contradicts your claim that he held otherwise. Retroactive excuse-making will no more get you out of this fact than claiming to have flashed "time-out" behind your back will get you out of a goal.

[justshutupandtakeit]

In 1803 those lands were not IN the Union, only owned by it. The Union could sell them, give them away, offer them as prizes in a lottery. They could not do that with States.

You can't split the Union by alienating lands which aren't IN the Union. The statement is not speaking of the same subject which I am.

My statement is still unchallenged.