Posted on 07/11/2015 9:54:21 AM PDT by golux
You misunderstood and just misuoted the sentence. Look up the term packet line and see if you think your conclusion is factual.
Yes, but there you are assuming, and nowhere is it stated in the Construction. And nowhere did the states surrender the right of secession or allow it to be limited in any way.
You still seem confused about the way the states joined. The states that joined later may have needed approval but then again the Constitution says that it is the job of the federal government to make sure all the states have a republican form of government. If the original constitution of Kansas wasn't really along the lines of a proper republic, they may have gotten refused for a time. That does not negate the fact that ALL the states that entered the Union did so of their own free will and not by force, and thus could leave by their own free will. If you were to join a club, and even if they had to review your credentials and approve you before you became a member, that would not take away your right to leave the club later if you chose.
I think Jefferson Davis summed up the situation very well in his inaugural address:
"Our present position has been achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations. It illustrates the American idea that government rests upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish a government whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established. The declared purposes of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn were to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, to provide for the common defence, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity; and when in the judgment of the sovereign States now comprising this Confederacy it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, an appeal to the ballot box declared that so far as they were concerned the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 defined to be inalienable. Of the time and occasion for its exercise, they, as sovereign, were the final judges each for itself. The impartial and enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct, and He who knows the hearts of men will judge the sincerity with which we have labored to preserve the government of our fathers, in its spirit and in those rights inherent in it, which were solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which have been affirmed and reaffirmed in the Bills of Rights of the several States. When they entered into the Union of 1789, it was with the undeniable recognition of the power of the people to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of that government whenever, in their opinion, its functions were perverted and its ends defeated. By virtue of this authority, the time and occasion requiring them to exercise it having arrived, the sovereign States here represented have seceded from that Union, and it is a gross abuse of language to denominate the act rebellion or revolution. They have formed a new alliance, but in each State its government has remained as before."
From what part of the Constitution do you draw this opinion? When the property didn't belong to the state in the first place?
(regarding govn't property in southern states) From the fact that all power that the government has was delegated to the government by its creators, the states. Certain properties were delegated by the states to the fed gov for the fulfillment of its delegated duties (such as tax collection houses and military forts for the protection of the states). However, when the states reassumed their delegated powers, the federal government now had no right to maintain tax houses and forts and such in those states, as the power and right to do so had been withdrawn.
An attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumters with provisions only
Except they weren't. They were also bringing more troops and ammunition.
Here are the newspaper articles I promised to post (They are almost all Northern btw). I also included a few sources besides newspaper articles.
"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole...we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe . This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually."
Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860
"...the Union must obtain full victory as essential to preserve the economy of the country. Concessions to the South would lead to a new nation...which would destroy the U.S. Economy."
- Pamphlet No 14. "The Preservation of the Union A National Economic Necessity," The Loyal Publication Society, printed in New York , May 1863, by Wm. C. Bryant & Co. Printers
"They (the South) know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest.... These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union . They (the North) are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are as mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it."
New Orleans Daily Crescent, January 21, 1861
Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat: "The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it. Literally nothing. The transportation of cottonand its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No - We MUST NOT 'let the South go.'"
New York Evening Post article titled "What Shall Be Done For A Revenue?":
That either revenue from dutues must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad....If neither of these things is done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which suppoly our treasure will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is rip....Allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten per cent, wchih is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railways would be supplied from southern ports."
In an article titled "What is the Issue?" appearing on page 290 in the May 11,1861 issue of Harper's Weekly we find
"A RECENT number of Once a Week has a summary of foreign news, and it remarks: "There is a revolution in America, involving impracticable tariffs and a menace of a dearth of cotton." The article goes on to state "Impracticable tariffs have as much to do with the struggle as they have with Garibaldi"s war in Italy."
W.C. Fowler (Author of The Sectional Controversy (published 1864), recounted an incident when some years previously, he met a friend from his college days who was at that time a prominent Northern member of Congress. The Congressman was leaving a heated meeting regarding abolition and other sectional issues. Fowler asked the Congressman what was the real reason that Northerners were encouraging abolitionist petitions. The Congressman replied: "The real reason is that the South will not let us have a tariff, and we touch them were they will feel it."
President James Buchanan's message to Congress declared,
"The South had not had her share of money from the treasury, and unjust discrimination had been made against her...."
In 1828, Senator Thomas H. Benton declared:
"Before the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars and the North had exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact?...Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths, of the annual expense of supporting the Federal government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this."
The Ten Causes Of The War Between The States by James W. King and LtCol Thomas M. Nelson
"Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia-North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to themselves. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 era (between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement."
The Ten Causes Of The War Between The States by James W. King and LtCol Thomas M. Nelson
You mean like the one packet line that ran for a while between New Orleans and Europe? Again, if there was all that demand for imports in the southern states then why weren't more lines established?
My guess would be February or March 1861 after the state announced their secession and the Confederacy was organizing itself.
But according to Treasury Dept. data, tariff deposits dropped to $41.5 for calendar year 1861.
Figures would be for fiscal year, which at the time ended June 30th. So we're talking about a drop in revenue of about 23 to 25%.
For calendar year 1862 and forward, data includes the new variables of raw war material imports, and foreign goods now having to be imported as a substitute for Southern goods no longer available.
I highly doubt that the government would tax the very goods they need to fight the war, and other than cotton what did the South provide to the North that was taxed?
Did you find the definition of packet line?
The thing I don’t get about all the antebellum apologists is, if the south were really feeling so put out about believing that they were being exploited through shipping practices by the north, why didn’t they employ their own ships?
We already know that in 1859 New Orleans was the 4th largest port in the US so they were already getting a clue about controlling their own destiny that way.
You are moving into speculation which is of no interest to me.
About Southern commerce with the North, they were buyers of Cotton and food.
I'm assuming that permissions is needed, based on my reading of the Constitution. And you're assuming permission isn't needed, based on your reading of the Constitution. The men at the Constitution themselves don't seem to have weighed in on the subject much, except James Madison who wrote several times against the idea of states being able to just walk out.
If the original constitution of Kansas wasn't really along the lines of a proper republic, they may have gotten refused for a time.
Actually the problem was free state/slave state. The first couple allowed slavery.
That does not negate the fact that ALL the states that entered the Union did so of their own free will and not by force, and thus could leave by their own free will.
One could just as easily make the case, and I have, that states were allowed to join the Union with the consent of the other states and thus could only leave with the consent of the other states. Free will is fine. But all the free will in the territory will not get them added as a state unless the other states OK it.
If you were to join a club, and even if they had to review your credentials and approve you before you became a member, that would not take away your right to leave the club later if you chose.
Unless the rules said leaving required consultations and approval of the other members.
From the fact that all power that the government has was delegated to the government by its creators, the states. Certain properties were delegated by the states to the fed gov for the fulfillment of its delegated duties (such as tax collection houses and military forts for the protection of the states). However, when the states reassumed their delegated powers, the federal government now had no right to maintain tax houses and forts and such in those states, as the power and right to do so had been withdrawn.
Article I, Section 8 makes it clear that Congress exercises sole authority over the property of the other states. There is nothing in there that says when states leave they can take what they want.
Except they weren't. They were also bringing more troops and ammunition.
Which Lincoln also mentioned in his letter and also made it clear that they would remain on the ship unless the resupply was opposed. Nothing was hidden from Pickens.
And were either taxed?
Yes. So if there was such demand in the South for imports then why weren't any packet lines established between them and Europe? Other than the one which ran for a time in the 1850's?
After secession, wouldn’t they be imports?
Are you assuming a relationship between the presence of packet service and volume of imports? How does that work?
A packet line is defined as a regularly scheduled cargo trade back and forth between ports. If there were no packet lines between the southern ports and Europe then that's an indication that the amount of traffic between the two destinations wasn't enough to justify a regular schedule. Which would indicate the volume of imports just wasn't there.
Not everything imported had a tariff placed on it. I don't believe raw cotton had a tariff and I don't know what food you're talking about that the South exported.
Unless the rules said leaving required consultations and approval of the other members.
But the Constitution says no such thing. It never touches the topic, because that topic falls under the Tenth Amendment, as a right left to the States. :-)
Article I, Section 8 makes it clear that Congress exercises sole authority over the property of the other states. There is nothing in there that says when states leave they can take what they want.
Remember, the constitution only applies to states while they are in the Union. Congress and the constitution has no power over anything in any state which has withdrawn its delegated powers.
Regarding Fort Sumter, here are a couple interested articles for you to read:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/04/lincolns-war/
http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html
Lincoln in a letter to Gustavus Fox in May 1861. Fox was the commander of the expedition Abe sent to reinforce Ft. Sumter:
"You (FOX) and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result (WAR) .”
Someone ignorant of the numbers of ships involved in trade, what routes were profitable, and the amount of goods being transported via coastal ships and railroads might think that there is some valid conclusion somewhere in your question.
But of course you are not that ignorant.
Why don't you just disclose what you want to prove or disprove.
I also forgot to mention that the principle of secession was being taught in the constitution classes at West Point in the early 1800s, classes and textbooks that the US government was paying for. In William Rawle's Views of the Constitution it said that
"It depends of the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle of which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.
This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which though not expressed, was mutually understood."
Rawle also had this to say about secession:
The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution. But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. To withdraw from the Union is a solemn, serious act. Whenever it may appear expedient to the people of a state, it must be manifest in a direct and unequivocal manner."
(As a note: Rawle was a Northerner [born in Philadelphia], a contemporary of the Founders, and his book was warmly received when published. The North American Review, a journal of Boston political orthodoxy, blessed his book as an "intelligent guide.")
As an American, Rawle knew that the Union was dear to all and offered many advantages to member states. But as an American, he also knew that when the people of a state felt that those advantages no longer existed and that the Union had become a thread to their happiness, the very reason for the Union's existence was no longer valid.
Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, said:
"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right."
That will give you data on tariffs on cotton from China and India. Big Northern mills lost all of their supply in 1861.
If you go to the U.S. Customs data by category, you can find the info. On food.
“Lastly, still waiting for you to provide the identity of a major country that had slavery that the UK recognized AFTER 1861.”
Are you daft, man? I’ve already mentioned the United States (so I guess you do not think the United States was a major country in the 19th century). Great Britain did not stop recognizing the United States, so they necessarily recognized the United States, which was a major country where slavery was legal.
And, are you really serious about Parliament caring very much what their working-class constituents thought? I can tell you, that in the mid-19th century Parliament didn’t give much of a damn what their working-class constituents thought, but they very much cared what the merchant class thought. Kind of like our Congress.
I don't think I've ever said it was illegal for the South to leave, just the way they chose to. Secession, as Madison said, requires the approval of those staying as well as those leaving.
But the Constitution says no such thing. It never touches the topic, because that topic falls under the Tenth Amendment, as a right left to the States. :-)
It doesn't say what the process for leaving is. It's left to deduce that method from a clear reading of the Constitution itself. And it's pretty clear that any action involving admitting states, changing them one they've been admitted, and any actions that might affect the other states requires the consent of the states.
Remember, the constitution only applies to states while they are in the Union. Congress and the constitution has no power over anything in any state which has withdrawn its delegated powers.
But that property is still the property of the U.S. and only Congress can dispose of it.
Regarding Fort Sumter, here are a couple interested articles for you to read...
Napolitano's opinion and some Confederate leaders saying Lincoln provoked the war. What is that supposed to prove?
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.