Posted on 02/17/2010 3:43:05 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative
Prior to the American Civil War, it was popularly assumed that states which had freely chosen to enter the Union could just as freely withdraw from said union at their own discretion. Indeed, from time to time individual states or groups of states had threatened to do just that, but until 1860 no state had actually followed through on the threat.
Since then, it has been considered axiomatic that the War “settled the question” of whether or not states had the right to secede. The central government, backed by force of arms, says the answer is No. As long as no state or group of states tests the central government’s resolve, we can consider the question to be “settled” from a practical viewpoint.
This assertion has long troubled me from a philosophical and moral viewpoint. We are supposedly a nation of laws, and the central government is supposedly subservient to the laws that established and empower it.
In a nation of laws, when someone asks, “Do states have a right to secede from the Union?”, a proper answer would have one of two forms:
Here, x would be an explanation of the laws that supported the Yes or No answer.
With the secession issue, though, we are given the following as a complete and sufficient answer:
“No, because if any state tries to secede, the central government will use force of arms to keep it from succeeding.”
There is no appeal to law in this answer – just brute force.
Based on this premise, the central government can amass to itself whatever right or power it chooses, simply by asserting it. After all, who has the power to say otherwise?
Come to think of it, that’s exactly how the central government has behaved more often than not since the Civil War.
This issue came to mind today because of an item posted today on a trial lawyer’s blog (found via Politico). The lawyer’s brother had written to each of the Supreme Court justices, asking for their input on a screenplay he was writing. In the screenplay, Maine decides to secede from the US and join Canada. The writer asked for comments regarding how such an issue would play out if it ever reached the Supreme Court.
Justice Antonin Scalia actually replied to the screenwriter’s query. I have a lot of respect for Scalia regarding constitutional issues, but his answer here is beyond absurd.
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.")
He actually said that a constitutional issue was settled by military action. Oh, and by including the word “indivisible” in the Pledge of Allegiance, the issue became even more settled.
What if the president were to send out the troops to prevent the news media from publishing or broadcasting anything critical of his administration? This is clearly an unconstitutional action, but by Scalia’s logic, if the president succeeds, we must then say that the military action “settled the question” of free speech.
If these scenarios are not comparable, I’d like to hear why.
It was obvious that he was not there to negotiate peace.
In fact, as the Peace Commissioners were attempting to present the greetings of the Confederacy, Lincoln was sending the Union Navy, secretly, to Charleston harbor.
He was proceeding with war, not peace.
Only after Lincoln caved to their demands and only if the topic was of interest to them as well. Your insistence that it would have included payment of debt and for stolen property is not clear from the letter Davis sent. You can call that 'negotiations' if you want. It was more like a mockery of the word.
It is not obvious that they were there for the same reason. They were delivery boys, toting Davis' ultimatum.
In fact, as the Peace Commissioners were attempting to present the greetings of the Confederacy, Lincoln was sending the Union Navy, secretly, to Charleston harbor.
Where the Davis regime had been trying to starve the fort into submission. Obviously peace was not high on Davis' to-do list.
Yeah, it was so secret that Lincoln sent a message to the governor of South Carolina telling him exactly what he was doing.
Not that POS Bob Huddleston again! His web site is full of lies and myths, something you know an awful lot about.
That was really a crock of rhetoric. You saw the word EQUITY and you know the meaning.
Enumerate the “demands”.
Lincoln had no intention of negotiating.
It was he who was making all the demands.
You said: “It is not obvious that they were there for the same reason (to negotiate peace)”.
Certainly they were. Look them up in any history book. They were called the Peace Commissioners.
Wish that Lincoln could have been known as the “Peace President”.
“Where the Davis regime had been trying to starve the fort into submission.”
You know that that was a contrivance created by the Lincoln administration to give their warship expedition cover from public opinion.
Recognition of the legitimacy of the Southern acts of secession.
Lincoln had no intention of negotiating.
Nor did Davis. Not until Lincoln had given in to his ultimatum, and probably not even then.
It was he who was making all the demands.
For example?
And who called them that? The confederate congress didn't call them that when they passed the legislation recommending a delegation be sent. Davis didn't call them that in his letter to Lincoln. The delegation didn't call themselves that when they communicated with Seward. The title 'Peace Commission' is a bit of post-rebellion Southron revisionism, circa late 20th century. Peace was not their purpose, recognition of the legality of their actions was.
Wish that Lincoln could have been known as the “Peace President”.
He could have gone down in confederate history as that by surrendering to Davis' demands. Instead he did the right thing and opposed secession and the armed rebellion the South initiated to further their aims.
You know that that was a contrivance created by the Lincoln administration to give their warship expedition cover from public opinion.
It is well documented.
I’d say that sending a letter saying that if supplies are allowed to be unloaded, no further action will be taken is far more peaceful a thing than sending a letter announcing that you’re going to begin bombarding within a few hours.
Well, I guess 80 hours is "a few" in your book. Robert Chew arrived in Charleston at 6 PM on the 8th, met with Pickens, delivered Lincoln's message, and was back on the train north at 11 PM.
Unless he was going to start a war, there was no need that Lincoln recognize the secession. As you have offered up yourself on this thread, there were numerous offers of peace and compensation originating in South Carolina, Burmingham, Richmond and Washington.
".... Not until Lincoln had given in to his ultimatum, and probably not even then."
How much more obvious could it be that you do not know that.
It was he who was making all the demands. For example?
“The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and impost but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using force against or among the people anywhere”.
Then what were the rebels there for?
As you have offered up yourself on this thread, there were numerous offers of peace and compensation originating in South Carolina, Burmingham, Richmond and Washington.
I have done nothing of the sort because here were no such offers made.
It was he who was making all the demands.
Lincoln said that property belonging to the U.S. was to be retained by the U.S. Where is the demand in that?
Well, it seems that everyone was calling duly appointed Confederate officials desiring to obtain peace by that title “Peace Commissioners”, beginning with the newspapers. Here from the Staunton (Va) Vindicator are two uses of the term in March of 1861 regarding the Virginia Peace conference:
Judge Jno. Brockenbrough, one of the Commissioners from Virginia to the Peace Congress, passed through Staunton on the 4th, on his way to his home in Lexington. In a brief conversation with the Judge, he expressed it as his opinion that there was very little hope of an adjustment of our national difficulties. He regards the amendment to the Constitution proposed by Mr. Corwin, and the report of the Peace Commissioners, as mere patch work, and falling immeasurably short of a remedy, or a just and fair basis of settlement. The Judge seemed to feel exceedingly despondent for the country, and loth to contemplate the sad disasters which loom up in the future for the only truly free government in the world.
Staunton Vindicator March 1861
Judge John W. Brockenbrough.
On Saturday evening last, about ten o'clock, it having been ascertained that Judge Jno. W. Brockenbrough was at the Virginia Hotel, Turner's Cornet Band, at the request of a number of our citizens, complimented him with a serenade. In response, Judge B. made a few remarks on the condition of our country. Having but recently returned from Washington, he gave a succinct, yet interesting allusion to the efforts of the Peace Commissioners sent by Virginia (of whom he was one) to devise some means by which the Constitutional rights of the South might be more fully assured, and, as a consequence, the Union preserved. Those efforts having failed of all desirable issue, he saw no other course for Virginia to pursue with honor, than to immediately separate from the Northern States, the animus of whose every action is intense hostility to the institutions and equality of the South.
Staunton Vindicator, March 29, 1861
Now of course, your next argument is to say that the term was in use only in the South, which of course, again is not true. Here is a another document of the period on sale from a collector.
Report of the Committee on Federal Relations, with the Report of the Peace Commissioners appointed to wait on Presidents Lincoln and Davis by the General Assembly. Document H
Maryland State Senate
ISBN: NA Price: $269.16
Publisher: Frederick: Beale H. Richardson, printer Date Published: 1861
Here is another document for sale on the Internet:
Leslie's Illustrated News. 4/13/61. Front cover has the CSA Peace Commissioners to avoid a Civil War. Full issue with events leading up to the war that would start in less than one week. Free shipping. - Price: $50. Available here: http://openlibrary.org/b/OL6546301M/Report_of_the_Committee_on_federal_relations_with_the_report_of_the_peace_commissioners_appointed_to_wait_on_Presidents_Lincoln_and_Davis_by_the_General_assembly.
The title 'Peace Commission' is a bit of post-rebellion Southron revisionism, circa late 20th century.
Again, not true and a prevarication on your part.
As you can see, all four references above are from 1861, not "circa late 20th Century"
What a pants load.
And the invasion began three days later, but a day late due to the storm.
So, let’s see, 80 minus 10 and 1/2, minus 24....well you do the math.
Why don’t you just admit that it wouldn’t have mattered if Lincoln gave 90 days notice as far as you’re concerned.
.What a pants load.
It certainly was, but on your part alone.
90 days notice of what?
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.