Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

I’ve seen and stood on the auction block in the French Quarter of New Orleans and in Mississippi, but never heard of any in New York. Link?

But "State's Rights" as understood by the slave states of the 1860s wasn't federalism. In fact it was something different from the Constitution properly understood. It was the idea that states were free of checks on their power similar to those which were imposed on the federal government.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The states understood this to mean sovereignty under their own constitution. Read the documents cited on which this thread is based. They are shot-through with complaints that the Federal government was usurping or threatening to usurp rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Ammendment. Not only regarding the "right" to own slaves as property but mostly.

As to checks on their power ... Each state had a its own constitution that had checks and balances built in similar to the national constitution. They didn't get into the union until their constitution passed muster with the federal congress.

The problem was unenlightened human thinking that had passed through all generations of humanity that said that not all of the people we know now to be fully and equally human were then considered to be so. There were "servant" races. There were "slave" races. And neither the federal or the state constitutions considered Africans as fully and equally human to white europeans. They were property similar to livestock.

With the benefit of the last 150 years of continuing enlightenment it is easy for us, today to see how wrong this was. But for the people of the 1700s when the Federal Constitution was drafted and the through the the first half of the 1800s by which many state constitutions were created, this was commonly believed.

This thinking even lingered within the Federal government itself illustrated by the facts that during the Civil War: 1- Africans admitted to the US Army were only paid half of white solders; 2- Africans were not given officer's rank or authority over white soldiers and 3- In the early stages of the war, Africans were use primarily in the rear and not in combat.

In addition this is not a "white" only problem but a human one. Japanese culture had the same idea about non-Japanese as did the Chinese. The evolution of human thinking about what constitutes a human being was necessary and continues.

If slavery had not existed and all of the other difficulties you wish to assert did exist in the relationship between the states and the Federal government, there would have been no Civil War.

sorry, should have included the /satire tag. It was meant as a response to an idiotic post further up about how slaves were better off than Irish immigrants.

Thanks for the clarification. There are some here at Freerepublic who have actually expressed the belief that southern slaves DID have it better than contemporary Negros and Irish.

I've been to that particular debate on FR several times....

One can make a sound argument that the Confederate states had the constitutional right to secede, but to go beyond that and defend slavery is an opinion that we should not be entertaining on this site, any more than, say, being pro-abortion or a Holocaust denier.

‘If they had outlawed slavery then what would they have seceded over? ‘

I think a legit case can be made over economic inequities, but I don’t think they would have warranted secession.

The bottom line is it was in fact all about slavery, and the South insisting on keeping it intact as a institution.

‘The fault lies with the founding fathers for not outlawing slavery from the very beginning of the country.’

While true, it could have been ended at any point between the end of the Revolutionary War and the beginning of the CW.

That it wasn’t, and the stunning arguments offered by the pro slavery crowd within the government at the time, simply boggles the mind looking back.

DWar: "Read these Declarations of Causes, omit the slavery issue and Federal tyranny is the same today as then."

There are a number of Big Lies central to our Lost Causers' efforts to rewrite history.

The first is that it was not all about slavery, or that slavery can be somehow discounted as the core reason.
The second is that Federal "usurpation" of power caused the South's secession.
The third is that states have an unlimited Constitutional "right of secession."

In fact, the opposites are true.

As your own document here clearly says, it was only about slavery, nothing else.
And the South's real complaint, expressed in this document, was not that the Federal government imposed its will on the South -- just the opposite, their complaint was: the Federal government was not enforcing Fugitive Slaves laws in non-slave states and territories.
In other words, the Federal government was refusing to exercise its power, not "usurping" too much power.
As for a supposed Constitutional "right of secession," that is bogus to the max.
The Constitutional method is a state's application to Congress and agreement with Congress's terms and conditions (i.e. National Debt, Federal properties, etc.)

Any other method is just asking for trouble.

The South was more concerned with their fear that the northern states would amend the constitution to allow the people to elect U.S. Senators.

I've seen a lot of Lost Causer arguments about what secession was all about over the years I've been here, but this is a new one. I don't suppose you can point to any evidence to support this hypothesis, can you?

Evidence?

For many in the South, the prospect of a Seventeenth Amendment was the most urgent issue. However, nearly as many were concerned about the Federal Government imposing a requirement that motorists use seatbelts.

And, indeed, there were a few who mentioned the slave issue, but purely as a make-weight argument.

(spitting up coffee)... You win the thread, FRiend!

There are a number of Big Lies central to our Lost Causers' efforts to rewrite history.

I am not a lost causer. I posted this simply to point out that the struggle against monolithic elitist control over the affairs of the people is not recent. That the grievences of the people are the same in principle today as in 1860.

The first is that it was not all about slavery, or that slavery can be somehow discounted as the core reason.

I have stated repeatedly that slavery WAS the core issue. It's just not the core principle. The principle was property rights. If slaves are viewed as property similar to livestock and rights in property can be ignored, taken away or the Federal government can ignore their responsibility to protect said rights then it is the Federal Government that has not lived up to its Constitutional duty with regard to the states.

The second is that Federal "usurpation" of power caused the South's secession.

YOU may think this was not an issue but Southerners in 1860 did. The Declarations of Causes is full of them; denial of rights in property; support of subersive activity to weaken state government authority within their own borders and attempts to weaken economic commerce of Southern states are but three. And the failure of the Federal government to protect the property rights of the citizens of its member states can be argued as a usurpation of power by omission.

The third is that states have an unlimited Constitutional "right of secession.

3- Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State."

Well into the 19th century, the United States was still viewed by many as an experimental confederation from which states could secede just as they had earlier acceded to it. It took a bloody war to prove them wrong.

Fascinating Fact: It is significant that no Confederate leader was ever brought to trial for treason. A trial would have brought a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession. Federal prosecutors were satisfied with the verdict that had been decided in battle.

I did not want to get into a discussion about slavery. The Civil War was about the issue of slavery but the underlying principle was property rights and the argument the South made was that the Federal government was not acting to protect property rights of its citizens in the South as the Constitution required. The Federal government chose which property rights to protect and which to not.

This will be my last post on this thread. It seems for some the issue of slavery and the principle of property rights are too difficult to unhinge and discuss individually.

My purpose for the post was only to highlight the fact that there is a "soft tyranny" that is always perpetrated by centralized elitist government that operates from afar.

DWar: "This will be my last post on this thread."

Of course -- you want to run away from your own bogus arguments, everyone can understand that.

DWar: "I posted this simply to point out that the struggle against monolithic elitist control over the affairs of the people is not recent.
That the grievences of the people are the same in principle today as in 1860."

This is so much b*ll cr*ap, where do we even begin?
Read your own document, pal!
The South did not complain about Federal "usurpation" of power, just the opposite.
Their complaint was the Federal government was not enforcing Fugitive Slave laws in non-slave states and territories.

In what possible sense can that be considered, in your words: "monolithic elitist control"?

Indeed, it was the South which, from the beginning, had always enjoyed nearly "monolithic elitist control" over the affairs of the United States.
For example: all but three of the first 18 presidents were Democrats and/or Southerners.
And neither the northern Federalists nor Whigs were anti-slavery.

Indeed, the first truly anti-slavery party ever elected to power were the Republicans in 1860, and Lincoln was months away from inauguration when the Deep South began seceding.

Now I'm out of time... will pick the rest of this argument up later...

Dwar: "I have stated repeatedly that slavery WAS the core issue.

It was the only issue of any importance.

DWar: "It's just not the core principle. The principle was property rights."

Of course, antebellum Southerners always spoke in euphemisms like "property rights" and "our peculiar institution."
In that they were like Nazis speaking of the "Final Solution" instead of the real words to describe their actions.

DWar: "If slaves are viewed as property similar to livestock and rights in property can be ignored, taken away or the Federal government can ignore their responsibility to protect said rights then it is the Federal Government that has not lived up to its Constitutional duty with regard to the states."

First of all, according to our Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" -- and therefore the premise your argument is utter and complete rubbish.

Second, what we're talking about here are States Rights to Nullify Federal laws they don't agree with -- and that was a legal position argued by Jefferson and Madison before Jefferson became President, and held by many Southerners before the Civil War.

So the South was fully in favor of States' Rights to Nullify Federal laws -- except, except, except when that nullification involved Northern states nullifying Fugitive Slave laws.

In other words: the South was totally, 100% hypocritical on the matter of Nullification.

Further, this was never a serious issue as long as the Federal Government was controlled by Southerners and "Dough-Faced" Northerners ("Dough-Faced" = Southern sympathizers like Presidents Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan).

Before the election of 1860 the South did not secede, did not seriously threaten to secede.
What changed in December 1860?
Only the election, not even the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln.
"Dough-faced" Buchanan was still President, Lincoln had done and said nothing.
Suddenly the Deep South has irreconcilable differences and declares itself seceded.

So the Deep South's secession was not caused by any action of the Federal government, but only by fears of what actions might happen in the future.

DWar: "YOU may think this was not an issue but Southerners in 1860 did.
The Declarations of Causes is full of them; denial of rights in property; support of subersive activity to weaken state government authority within their own borders and attempts to weaken economic commerce of Southern states are but three.
And the failure of the Federal government to protect the property rights of the citizens of its member states can be argued as a usurpation of power by omission."

All of this boils down to just one complaint: the Federal government was not aggressively enough enforcing Fugitive Slave laws in non-slave states. Note this Boston sign from 1851:

DWar: "Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent.
This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States."

The old Articles of Confederation do specifically use the term "perpetual Union."
"Perpetual Union" was replaced in the Constitution with the phrase "more perfect Union."
So, in what way is a "more perfect Union" not also "perpetual."

New York did not attach any conditions to its ratification (yes, the vote was close), in part because James Madison informed New York that:

"My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan.
Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved.
The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.
It has been so adopted by the other States."

Neither did Virginia attach conditions, only recommendations, which became the basis for the Bill of Rights.
Note a key phrase from Virginia's ratification statement is:

"the People of Virginia declare and make known that 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..."

President Madison's judgment on secession, in 1830 was:

"the compact being among individuals as embodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.
The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

At yet, beginning in December 1860, dissolving the Constitution "at pleasure" is precisely what the Deep South attempted to do, pal.

(BIG sigh)

While there are several holes in your most recent post I just don’t have the time or desire to argue a topic for which you seem to have a great deal of passion but I didn’t care to discuss to begin with.

Good luck to you FRiend and thank you for your courtesy.

"I just don’t have the time or desire to argue a topic...which... I didn’t care to discuss to begin with."

Pal, there are a large number of Lost Causers posting their arguments on Free Republic pretty much every day.
Your thread here is just one of many like it.

There are a relatively small number of us who enjoy the challenges of keeping the historical record accurate.
This often involves quoting our Founders, or Civil War era politicians, and just as often dodging and countering personal barbs & insults. ;-)

But let me leave you with the words of James Madison of Virginia writing to Alexander Hamilton of New York, in July, 1788, concerning New York's desire to add conditions and qualifications to their acceptance of the new US Constitution:

"My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan.
Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved.
The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.
It has been so adopted by the other States."

And Madison again in 1830, writing to a fellow Virginian, son-in-law of Thomas Jefferson and future diplomat -- the young Nicholas P. Trist:

"...the compact [US Constitution] being among individuals as embodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.
"The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
"It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

In 1860 there were no "usurpations" or "abuses" of Federal power. The Deep South simply seceded "at pleasure," and then started a war the nation will never forget.

I understand.
I’m certain your work is very important to you.

"I’m certain your work is very important to you."

Work? Naw, recreation in my free time (think competitive sport). ;-)