Posted on 06/28/2017 11:20:43 AM PDT by Sopater
My "Rewriting American History" column of a fortnight ago, about the dismantling of Confederate monuments, generated considerable mail. Some argued there should not be statues honoring traitors such as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis, who fought against the Union. Victors of wars get to write the history, and the history they write often does not reflect the facts. Let's look at some of the facts and ask: Did the South have a right to secede from the Union? If it did, we can't label Confederate generals as traitors.
Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the war between the Colonies and Great Britain, held "New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States." Representatives of these states came together in Philadelphia in 1787 to write a constitution and form a union.
During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments.
At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," rejected it. The minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
America's first secessionist movement started in New England after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Many were infuriated by what they saw as an unconstitutional act by President Thomas Jefferson. The movement was led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state. He later became a congressman and senator. "The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy — a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." His Senate colleague James Hillhouse of Connecticut agreed, saying, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." This call for secession was shared by other prominent Americans, such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story. The call failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.
The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified — and a union never created — if the people of those 13 "free sovereign and Independent States" did not believe that they had the right to secede. Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a right that states had. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
Northern newspapers editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent." The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
Confederate generals were fighting for independence from the Union just as George Washington and other generals fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who'd label Gen. Robert E. Lee as a traitor might also label George Washington as a traitor. I'm sure Great Britain's King George III would have agreed.
You said, "The Declaration of Independence was an announcement to Great Britain that we no longer recognized their authority."
How is that not withdrawing from our former association with England?
An aspect of secession, as illustrated in more depth here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession is identified by the adjective formal - “The act of secession is the formal withdrawal from a union or confederation”.
As in a circumstance such as divorce there is mutuality of terms and purpose between all parties. If you look at the examples at the link you see references to ratifications and negotiated consent.
My point is that there was none of that with the colonialist rebels. It was actually more than just an announcement - it was a throwing down the gauntlet in full recognition of the likely response.
We didn’t simply “withdraw” from British rule - we tore ourselves away from their control. We didn’t secede against their authority - we openly rebelled against it. We didn’t give a damn if they liked it or not - we were beyond “praying for relief” or asking for consideration.
Whatever.
Anyway, “secession” is a legal term of art which legal definition as cited in Black’s Legal Dictionary is the generally accepted definition in the legal profession, not subject to your or Wikipedia’s definition.
Bye.
Yes, and one that is totally inappropriate to the Revolutionary War.
Every schoolboy knows the Constitution (Article I, Section 2) requires the federal government to conduct a census every 10 years.
But a little birdie tells me the word “census” is not mentioned in the constitution.
Everyone, including Abraham Lincoln, knew the U. S. constitution included provisions for slavery.
But a little birdie tells me the word “slavery” is not mentioned in the constitution (until the 13th amendment prohibiting it).
Now a little birdie tells me that the word “secession” is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and that the meaning of the phrase “dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another . . .” is unknown and unknowable.
When I find the right words I will attempt to explain these very confusing documents.
Meanwhile, let's ponder what Lincoln said: the intent of the lawgiver is the law.
You should probably see someone about those voices in your head.
Well, you are playing with words and semantics.
The legal profession’s definition of “secession” includes “the secession of 11 states at the time of the Civil War”.
It’s your word against the legal profession’s definition of “secession”. I’ll take the legal professions definition over yours.
Bye.
Again.
Right.
Every schoolboy knows that if you describe a thing, you don’t necessarily have to say a particular word that defines the thing.
Mouse nuts.
Not at all but if that makes you feeeeeeeeel better then so be it.
Even you can't distinguish announcement to Great Britain that we no longer recognized their authority from withdrawing from our former association with England.
It's rockrr against the world. Rots a ruck rockrr.
Bye again.
I will try to make this my past post to you in this goofy word-smith discussion.
Outside of a few lost causers I've never heard of anyone using the term secession in place of rebellion or revolution when referring to the Revolutionary War. The generally accepted term is rebellion, not secession. When a person does a web search they get hits (as you pointed out in an earlier thread) to the slavers of 1860 but isn't is curious that there are zero hits for the Revolutionary War. So it isn't me against the mainstream view - it's you.
As you say, "Rots a ruck"
“The Revolutionary War was a war of rebellion against the crown, not secession. That’s what I’m talking about. There’s no mention of secession anywhere in that document.”
The word “rebellion” does not appear in the Declaration of Independence either.
Do you know why?
From the June 29, 1776, Virginia Constitution (Link) which listed grievances against the rule of George III and then declared (red bold emphasis mine):
"By which acts of misrule, the government of this country, as formerly exercised by the Crown of Great Britain, is TOTALLY DISSOLVED."
Is that formal enough for you? Note that the United States was not mentioned.
Consider South Carolina's Ordinance of Secession (Link2):
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
Sound similar to the 1776 Virginia dissolution? From the Wikipedia link you provided: "Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the withdrawal of a group from a larger entity, especially a political entity (a country), but also any organization, union or military alliance.
No. Without concordance it is rebellion, not secession.
Forget about the word "secession" if that makes you feel better.
The first sentence of the D of I declares the necessity "for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another".
Are you going to deny that the Revolutionary War was about DISSOLVING political ties with England in the exact wording of the Founders who fought it? Are you also going to deny that the Civil War was about the South DISSOLVING political ties with The Union?
So the principles laid down in the D of I applies to the South and the Civil War.
End of goofy discussion.
Honor, ethics and morality are goofy? In your world maybe but not in mine. Words have meaning and to warp them to fit a desire is contemptible.
I’m amused by people who cannot (or will not) see the distinction between secession, which is the orderly process of ending a treaty, confederacy, or union, and rebellion.
Rebellion, as evidenced by the Colonialists, was standing up to the Crown and defiantly renouncing their allegiance. They did so in the full knowledge that they would encounter violent reprisal and, should they fail, they would all hang.
There was no sugar-coating or pretense to it.
In the case of the Slavers Rebellion, they were the original “word-game” artists, making up the artifice of a unilateral secession in order to make themselves feel better about their insurrection.
If you’re comfortable about words being malleable and meaning whatever, who am I to stop you?
Rots a ruck
Wonderful.
In the meantime, the principles laid down in the D of I applies to the South and the Civil War because both were about DISSOLVING the political bands which had connected them.
Bye and rots a ruck rockrr.
Were the acts of the Southern states in leaving the Union in 1860-61 exactly analogous to the American colonies declaring their independence from the British Crown? The states voluntarily joined and were accepted into the Union. While the colonial governments declared their independence, they did not consent to subjection to the Crown. Britain established the colonies and allowed provincial assemblies to govern most internal matters, subject to royal governors. A better analogy to the colonial declarations of independence is Rhodesia making a unilateral declaration of independence from the Crown in 1965. The Southern states secession is analogous to Ireland declaring its independence, as that country was incorporated into the United Kingdom in 1801. The difference between the Southern and Irish cases is that the Irish Parliament had been dissolved upon joining the UK, while the Southern state governments remained intact. The Irish had to set up a parallel government, complete with military and courts, from scratch during the period of their war for independence. The Southern states had governmental functions in place before and after secession.
Were the acts of the Southern states in leaving the Union in 1860-61 exactly analogous to the American colonies declaring their independence from the British Crown? The states voluntarily joined and were accepted into the Union. While the colonial governments declared their independence, they did not consent to subjection to the Crown. Britain established the colonies and allowed provincial assemblies to govern most internal matters, subject to royal governors. A better analogy to the colonial declarations of independence is Rhodesia making a unilateral declaration of independence from the Crown in 1965. The Southern states secession is analogous to Ireland declaring its independence, as that country was incorporated into the United Kingdom in 1801. The difference between the Southern and Irish cases is that the Irish Parliament had been dissolved upon joining the UK, while the Southern state governments remained intact. The Irish had to set up a parallel government, complete with military and courts, from scratch during the period of their war for independence. The Southern states had governmental functions in place before and after secession.
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.