Walt, Mr. Lincoln refused to allow recognition and negotiation with the duly appointed commissioners from the Confederate Government to the Federal Government appointed by President Davis specifically to “agree, treat, consult, and negotiate” the adjustment of all points interest, including the debts and disposition of public property in the States that had left the Union (Davis, Rise and Fall, vol. I, pg. 213). Mr. Lincoln refused to recognize them, so the argument, advanced by yourself here, and Lincoln at the time, that leaving without assuming a fair portion of the public debt, is spurious.
An interesting historical analogy is worth mentioning. In 1790, after more than a year of waiting for Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution, and even refusing to impose tariffs on RI products in an effort to get “the vaut-rien” to ratify, the US Senate debated how best to deal with her refusal to ratify and what to do with RI’s share of the US war debt. On May 10th, 1790, Mr. William Maclay, Senator from Pennsylvania wrote, “Let accounts be settled and Rhode Island has a right to be charged with, and she has a right to pay her proportion of the cost of independence." In other words, the principle at the dawn of the Republic was “pay your share and you're on your own.” Then on May 11th Maclay wrote, "The Rhode Island resolutions were taken up. I was twice up against these resolutions. They (the other Senators) admitted on all hands that Rhode Island was independent, and did not deny that the measures now taken were meant to force her into adoption of the Constitution of the United States." The word “force” is used in no more violent sense than ‘convince’ RI to ratify, or be presented with a bill for $27,000. Knowing what a bunch of cheapskates Rhode Islanders were at teh time, a bill for $27,000 would have the effect of forcing them to ratify. Journal of William Maclay, United States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791. Edgar S. Maclay, ed., (NY: Appleton, 1890), pg. 259. Even this degree of coercion was denounced by some in Congress. On May 26th, Mr. Page said on the floor of the House, "Should this bill pass, and should Rhode Island adopt the Constitution, she will come with so bad a grace into the Union that she must be ashamed when she enters it." (Annals of Congress, 1st Congress, 2nd Session, pg. 1671.) The Founding Fathers were extremely concerned that this was to be a Union of the willing.
And in fairness to you, I think that over time, if you are exposed to enough on the record on this, you will not be so sure that the secessionists were right; with reflection, you'll come to realize that they were horribly wrong.
With all due respect to you, I would make to opposite argument. If you are exposed to enough of the argument from the other side, you will see that there were two sides to this argument, with elements of merit on both sides. Slavery is wrong, but suppressing the ideal of government by the consent of the governed and violating the provisions of the US Constitution in an effort to overthrow slavery is more so.
Respectfully,
D J White
Jackson would have hanged them outright. And they would have richly deserved it.
Were they going to recompense the US government for the Louisiana Purchase? Maybe assume the public debt of Texas? Pay an amount equal to what it cost to rid Florida of the indians? Or pay for Florida itself?
It is beyond ridiculous. You can do the same thing; just go over to your local military base and fire up one of the five ton trucks. Drive that bad boy off. Why not? You pay taxes don't you? It doesn't work that way. That the national assets would be split up was never considered by the framers and there was no mechanism for it then or now. By the way, that little factoid--the national debt-- is why secession schemes today are totally cracked.
Unless of course you plan to do what the secesh did in 1860-61; take things at the point of the gun.
Walt