Replies

Take the weekend off for Easter and look at what happens.

I will say, Bird, that I've been watching these Civil War threads for several years now and I've never seen anyone so comfortable in their own ignorance as you seem to be. Rather than refute your same nonsense yet again, I see that you added a few claims so I think I'll concentrate on those.

“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation” over “union,” “I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’” Thomas Jefferson

Your mastery of partial quotes is impressive, and at least you offer some documentation which, on the face of it, seems to support your claim. But let's look at the quote in full, shall we?

It's from a June 20, 1816 letter to William Crawford discussing the economic direction of the country. The quote, in context, is: "In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose : 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, "let us separate." I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture."

So Jefferson is talking about separation based on a specific issue, not merely leaving in a snit. But if we look at the words used - "let us separate" - then is there anyone foolish enough to conclude that Jefferson is talking about a mutual decision? One where both sides, after discussions, agree that it's best to go their separate ways? In your other Jefferson quote about separating, has the same connotation; peaceful partition based on a mutual decision. Which is as it should be, and as I have been saying all along. Secession is a mutual decision and requires the agreement of both sides - those staying as well as those going. Because only through mutual agreement and after the resolution of issues of possible contention can it be peaceful. The alternative is the one the South chose, separation through war. And do you honestly believe that's what Jefferson would have wanted? None of his quotes would indicate that.

A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, supports this view.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that Rawle's book was only used for a very short time at West Point, let's still look at what Rawle said. This is from Chapter 32 of Rawle's book titled "Of The Permanence of the Union":

"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, hld the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express provision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them."

So my question to you would be when did the Southern states incorporate provision in each of their state Constitutions? Month and year for each would be sufficient.

"f they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers."

Again let's look at the quote in context. What Grant said was this: "The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers." In other words, Grant is non saying that the South had a Constitutional right to leave. He's saying there was no remedy in the Constitution, so their actions were illegal. This is borne out by this Grant quote from his memoires: “Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship—on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror—must be the result."

The South resorted to rebellion. They rolled the dice and lost.

“The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force.”

And you breezed right by this part of the message, didn't you?

"The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain. It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance to such a theory."