But isn't the time to negotiate matters like that before the separation? When both sides have a chance to lay out their case and come to an equitable agreement? If one side walks away from obligations and with whatever property it wants then by what means can the other party use to bring the seceding party to the bargaining table? It has not control, no influence left. The seceding party has left, it has what it wants, and is under no obligation to make the remaining party happy.
Even the South did not claim the right to walk away without compensating the other States for their joint liabilities. The North spurned repeated attempts to rectify the imbalance created by the separation.
I would ask you this: Was the North any more right in immediately seizing all of the arms present in the Armories in Springfield, Missouri? Was the North any more right in seizing control of the Navy Yards at Norfolk and using the ships (which, admittedly, the Southern sailors abandoned in an attempt to behave honorably - honor being the highest dictum in antebellum Southern life, as you'll recall!) against the very States which paid to build them?
They seized first, and with no mention of compensation. The commission you speak of was sent for the purpose of obtaining recognition of the confederate government. Then, and only then was there a vague offer to discuss matters of disagreement. But let's play that game. Give me your house. Then we can discuss a fair price. I'll pay it, I promise. Deal?
The Commissions granted to these men specified that their explicit purpose was to treat for the redress of the debts incurred by the South, and they were operating under strict instruction to be as liberal in seeking amends as possible.
For what justifyable reason would Washington not even consider receiving these highly-respected gentlemen?
The confederacy launched this continent into the bloodiest war in it's history over a fort. Why should anyone believe that they would have hesitated for a moment to shut off shipping in the Mississippi at any time if they thought it was to their benefit.
One could argue that the North launched this continent into the civil war, as it repeatedly stalled, lied, and manipulated events such that they could attempt to re-inforce Fort Sumter, to allow it to be used against Charleston - thus threatening to destroy the most prominent port in all of South Carolina. As I also asserted previously, none of the rivers in South Carolina connected it to any other state. Why, then, would the Federal government continue to use the Fort to threaten the city of Charleston by reinforcing that Fort, while suggesting through official channels that they would be withdrawing from it? What possible inter-state authority could the Federal Government even claim to hold over the State at that point?
It is regrettable that the South fired the first shot, yes. The Governor of that State felt sufficiently threatened by the military action coming from New York to do so, so in the minds of he and his electorate, he was justified in doing so.
But regardless, you have missed the point completely. Your belief that a state may secede at will means that in your opinion a state can walk away from obligations, can seize anything it wants, can take any action it wants at the expense of the remaining states and those states have absolutely no rights in the matter and no say whatsoever.
Have I said that? No. It is the duty of the seceeding state to attempt to honorably rectify its debts to the remaining states to the best of its ability. The fact that the States which chose to seceed were spurned in their attempts to do so speaks volumes about the true intentions (i.e., overt conquest) of the Northern states.
Could events have happened without war, had the Southern states gone through the Congress to seceed? Perhaps. I would suggest that the irrational Republicans who had just been elected to Congress and to the Executive had no such intention of working with the South in resolving their sectional dispute at all, and that the end result would still have been the same. I'll see if I can research whether or not the issue of going through the Congress to seceed was considered by the leaders of the Secession movement, but I am not aware of any background on that at the moment.
Have you researched the threats made by the Northern states to seceed in the 1830-1840 timeframe? (I have not, I'm just curious.) Did they attempt to go through the Congress?
The seceding state is justified in your eyes. The remaining states are in the wrong. All because of some cock-eyed concept that only seceding states are sovereign and remaining states are at their mercy.
Wrong. The Seceding state is Justified, in my eyes, if and only if it has suffered extreme grievances at the hands of the other States, via the General government! I would consider our present tax system to be an "extreme grievance" - An absolute horror to our Founders, who revolted against a mere 13% tax. Unfortunately, since the Declaration of Independence has been declared to be Void by the United States Army, I have no hope of EVER having my grievances addressed in my lifetime.
The remaining states have no recourse except war or force.
Why, then, did the Founders openly strike the power of enforcing laws via military force FROM the powers granted to the General government by the States via the Constitution? Why?
I would suggest that they would be more horrified by the use of extreme and brutal force to coerce other sovereign States than they would by the resumption of sovereignty implied by secession.
To alter the highlighting of one of your citations,
"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will..." -- James Madison
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, would rightfully be protective of the Government created by it. However, notice the implication that my highlight has made towards your previous arguments that the "states have no implicit Sovereignty." Do you see what the Father of the Constitution thought of your position?
Let me post one more Madison quote and ask you to comment on it. Madison said, "An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them." Is Madison right or wrong. And if you think he is wrong then why?
Based on that statement alone, I would suggest that Madison is incorrect (I'd love to see the context: Do you have a link?). Well, rather than being incorrect (he did write it, after all), I would suggest that he may be painting an overly-dramatic picture with the express purpose of subtly scaring the States into remaining under the provisions of the Constitution.
The ability to force a party out of a contract against its will would, by nature, be a violation of that contract, no? At least, unless that contract contained a positive clause giving the consolidated government the authority to do so?
And, by supposition, the continued abuse of one of the signatories of a contract by another signatory would free the first from being bound by that contract, would it not?
Regards,
~dt~
""Resolved by the Confederate States of America in Congress Assembled, That it is the sense of this Congress that a commission of three persons be appointed by the President elect, as early as may be convenient after his inauguration, and sent to the government of the United States of America, for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between that government and the Confederate States of America, and for the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments upon principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith." -- act of congress authorizing the commissioners.
Show me where it explicitly says that they were there to treat for the redress of the debts incurred by the south? For all we know the matter of owing the U.S. for anything wasn't a question of disagreement.
Have I said that? No. It is the duty of the seceeding state to attempt to honorably rectify its debts to the remaining states to the best of its ability.
Where does it say that? You have claimed that the seceding states can walk away, you claim that power lies in the Constitution. Where does the Constitution require them to compensate the remaining states for anything? If you claim that they can walk away then you have to believe that they are under no obligation to do anything about what they walk away from or what they walk away with.
Wrong. The Seceding state is Justified, in my eyes, if and only if it has suffered extreme grievances at the hands of the other States, via the General government!
Ah, now you are placing restrictions on their actions. Before they could walk at will because they were sovereign and part of the deal voluntarily. Now you're claiming that they need justification. Well where does the Constitution place this restriction on them? Where does the Constitution require 'extreme grievance' before they can walk? What constitutes 'extreme grievance' in the first place?
The ability to force a party out of a contract against its will would, by nature, be a violation of that contract, no? At least, unless that contract contained a positive clause giving the consolidated government the authority to do so?
How could it? If one party has the ability to walk out of the contract at will without the agreement of the other parties to the contract, then it stands to reason that the other parties have the ability to end the contract with the one party without that parties agreement. It can't be one way, one logically follows the other. If South Carolina can walk out, at will, from the other states then the other states can, at will, turn South Carolina out from the Union. Madison has to be correct.
And, by supposition, the continued abuse of one of the signatories of a contract by another signatory would free the first from being bound by that contract, would it not?
Show me where the Constitution says anything about abuse. Your contention is that states may withdraw at will. I'm not aware of anything that says they have to have a reason or that places restrictions on what circumstances need to be met before secession is allowed.