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.

[Lee'sGhost]

"If you want to believe that the court is incapable of issuing an impartial decision then go ahead."

To believe otherwise re this particular subject with particular court would be stupid. If you want to appear stupid, go ahead.

"But regardless of how you feel about a court decision, it is a valid decision and it is binding."

It is a valid but tainted decision and, as with ALL SCOTUS decisions it is binding until the court overturns itself. And if you don't think THAT can happen you are kidding yourself.

[Non-Sequitur]

It is a valid but tainted decision and, as with ALL SCOTUS decisions it is binding until the court overturns itself. And if you don't think THAT can happen you are kidding yourself.

Sure it can. The court has overruled decisions made by prior courts on a number of occasions. But until that happens unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states was, and is, unconstitutional.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Logic is lost on neo-Confederates, just as it is on members of any other whacky cult.

[Lee'sGhost]

"But until that happens unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states was, and is, unconstitutional."

Of course it is, as long as we continue to ignore the principle stated in the Declaration of Independence for the United States of America state that "All Political Power is Inherent in the People."

[Lee'sGhost]

"Logic is lost on neo-Confederates, just as it is on members of any other whacky cult."

So true. Especially the cult of Lincoln. (Us Constitutionalists thrive on logic.) I could have ended this conversation three or for posts ago if logic was understood by the Southernphobes.

[Grand Old Partisan]

As an experiment, you and two or three of your firneds could declare their independence from the United States and see what happens. If you succeed, your example will be followed by legions of Islamicists.

[Lee'sGhost]

A better experiment would be for you to put your finger in a light socket to find out if the switch is on.

How can question MY logic and then post something as stupid as that? (Hint: That's a rhetorical question; requires no answer.)

[Grand Old Partisan]

Oww! That hurt!

Next time I'll read your posts completely before doing what you suggest.

Seriously thoguh, there's no point in wasting my time with someone whose tagline venerates a traitor.

[Lee'sGhost]

Bruce Lee was a traitor?

[justshutupandtakeit]

They were waiting to join their fellow Americans. Everyone realized they would eventually ratify. Thus, they were never treated as anything but states of the Union. No tariffs were levied against their products and at one point the Governor of Rhode Island wrote a letter to President Washington to deliver to Congress begging them not to treat RI like a separate country.

As far as taxation, RI and NC paid the same duties and tariffs on the products brought into American ports. RI may have gathered these funds at its ports for a while I don't know about that.

Since the former GOVERNMENT was dissolved (there was hardly anything to dissolve but whatever) and the NATION had formed a new one those states had no representation until they took the steps specified for representation. Like NY had no Senator's during the first Congress because it couldn't decide how to appoint them, this did not affect its being a member of the Union.

Nice little attempt to obsfusticate the issue with these delayed ratifications (which is all they were) but the fact that certain backward, corrupt and irrational politicians were able to blindly resist a change of government for a brief period shows nothing more than the insubstantiality of the reasons dragged forth to support the insupportible. With all the straws grasped for the house built with them still can't stand in a gentle breeze.

When South Carolina and Georgia were under the control of the British military during the Revolution what country were they a part of?

[Grand Old Partisan]

Bruce Lee would not have been a "twaitoh". I like to think of him as Cato saying: "Mr. Bwitt, Mr. Bwitt, Cahtage must be destwoyed!"

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have made repeated claims on this and other threads that not even Jefferson supported secession. You have undoubtedly seen them and probably protested the statement on the others. So don't be duplicitous.

But even so, Jefferson was not speaking of splitting the Union merely the possible ultimate disposition of newly acquired "possessions" of the Union.

You never point out distinctions but always try to blur the issue as in this case. Possessions of the Union are not part of the Union.

Jefferson's quote is meaningless and senseless, as well. It was never meant to have meaning since he was just blabbing about the ideal world which he loved to do.

There has been no error on my part and I have consistently upheld the same view time after time.

NONE of the Founders (nor even Jackson) supported the idea of Secession. NONE, ZERO, ZIP. Is that clear enough for you?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Congress called for a Constitutional Convention. The states selected the delegates. The delegates gathered and that body became the United States General Will. It was under no other power but its own as the highest embodiment of the American People. No instructions bound it and it could have decided at that point ANYTHING.

Fortunately, there were men of genius there: Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Franklin, Wilson who understood that there was NO government anymore, Articles or no Articles. Thus, they seized the moment to create the most perfect political document in history. Thank God for them.

Since the American people gathered in states did not reject their work and were not concerned that they might have exceeded their authority (which they didn't anyway), I certainly am not inclined to second guess them. The Articles' government had dissapated at any rate. Congress could not even form a quorum during most of its last yr. It was over.

Why would you care about legal formalities of dissolving a dissolved Government when a real government in 1861 never gave its consent to be torn apart? Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

Not that this has even an iota of relevence to the illegality of secession anyway.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Fabulous! An interesting tidbit -- the Secretary of War under the Articles of Confederation, Henry Knox, stayed on under the Constitution, though he was later confirmed by the Senate.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There are still elements of the Articles within the constitution thus, it can be said to be a re-vision.

But no matter, the American People convened in states decided that rather than quibble over supposed instructions from a phantom government they would ratify the actions of the greatest body of political knowledge ever assembled.

Fortunately for the American people they did so. Unfortunately for those who wished to weaken and eventually destroy that glorious Union.

I also find your great concern over this formality does not extend to those attempting to destroy the Union. They don't need no stinkin' formality. This would be hilarious if not so pitiful.

[justshutupandtakeit]

"Constitutionalists" like you think you can destroy the Constitution to save the Constitution. That is Logic?

[GOPcapitalist]

I have made repeated claims on this and other threads that not even Jefferson supported secession.

Irrelevant. Your statement here that is the topic of this discussion was a reference to splitting the union, not secession.

You have undoubtedly seen them and probably protested the statement on the others.

Irrelevant. The statement I protested to you here was not a reference to secession but to the union splitting. It is once again obvious that you are trying to excuse away a poorly worded statement for which you have only yourself to blame.

But even so, Jefferson was not speaking of splitting the Union merely the possible ultimate disposition of newly acquired "possessions" of the Union.

That word does not appear anywhere in his letter. The word "states" does though:

"The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

You never point out distinctions but always try to blur the issue as in this case.

Now you are projecting. You have been attempting to blur the distinction between the legal doctrine of secession and the general splitting of the union since you discovered that your previous attempts at excuse making were not working.

Possessions of the Union are not part of the Union.

1. If that is so then are you willing to recognize the secession of Indian and Arizona territories in 1861?

2. As I noted previously, Jefferson referred to the new territories as future STATES and does not use the word possessions anywhere in his quote.

[GOPcapitalist]

Those are quotes from a historian, not a court decision, Walt. Try again.

[Lee'sGhost]

Huh? Reference?

[justshutupandtakeit]

In 1803 these were not States no matter what Jefferson called them. They were possessions no matter what Jefferson called them.

Having them become states and leave the Union was never Jefferson's wish.

They were not in the UNION in 1803 thus, it was not a reference to splitting the UNION. They could have become separate countries had Congress allowed that but not by unilateral declarations without the consent of Congress. Jefferson did not maintain otherwise and even your duplicity is unable to support any contention that he did.