If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?

The Patriotist ^ | 2003 | Al Benson, Jr.

[Aurelius]

Over the years I've heard many rail at the South for seceding from the 'glorious Union.' They claim that Jeff Davis and all Southerners were really nothing but traitors - and some of these people were born and raised in the South and should know better, but don't, thanks to their government school 'education.'

Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 deals in some detail with the question of Davis' alleged 'treason.' In referring to the Northern leaders he noted: "They believed the most logical means of justifying the North's war would be to have the federal government convict Davis of treason against the United States. Such a conviction must presuppose that the Confederate States could not have seceded from the Union; so convicting Davis would validate the war and make it morally legitimate."

Although this was the way the federal government planned to proceed, that prolific South-hater, Thaddeus Stevens, couldn't keep his mouth shut and he let the cat out of the bag. Stevens said: "The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy...This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern states were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war...No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union..." And, although he did not plainly say it, what Stevens really desired was that the Christian culture of the Old South be 'reformed' into something more compatible with his beliefs. No matter how you look at it, the feds tried to have it both ways - they claimed the South was in rebellion and had never been out of the Union, but then it had to do certain things to 'get back' into the Union it had never been out of. Strange, is it not, that the 'history' books never seem to pick up on this?

At any rate, the Northern government prepared to try President Davis for treason while it had him in prison. Mr. Conner has observed that: "The War Department presented its evidence for a treason trial against Davis to a famed jurist, Francis Lieber, for his analysis. Lieber pronounced 'Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten'." According to Mr. Conner, U.S. Attorney General James Speed appointed a renowned attorney, John J. Clifford, as his chief prosecutor. Clifford, after studying the government's evidence against Davis, withdrew from the case. He said he had 'grave doubts' about it. Not to be undone, Speed then appointed Richard Henry Dana, a prominent maritime lawyer, to the case. Mr. Dana also withdrew. He said basically, that as long as the North had won a military victory over the South, they should just be satisfied with that. In other words - "you won the war, boys, so don't push your luck beyond that."

Mr. Conner tells us that: "In 1866 President Johnson appointed a new U.S. attorney general, Henry Stanburg. But Stanburg wouldn't touch the case either. Thus had spoken the North's best and brightest jurists re the legitimacy of the War of Northern Aggression - even though the Jefferson Davis case offered blinding fame to the prosecutor who could prove that the South had seceded unconstitutionally." None of these bright lights from the North would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. It's not that they were dumb, in fact the reverse is true. These men knew a dead horse when they saw it and were not about to climb aboard and attempt to ride it across the treacherous stream of illegal secession. They knew better. In fact, a Northerner from New York, Charles O'Connor, became the legal counsel for Jeff Davis - without charge. That, plus the celebrity jurists from the North that refused to touch the case, told the federal government that they really had no case against Davis or secession and that Davis was merely being held as a political prisoner.

Author Richard Street, writing in The Civil War back in the 1950s said exactly the same thing. Referring to Jeff Davis, Street wrote: "He was imprisoned after the war, was never brought to trial. The North didn't dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no 'rebellion' and that the South had got a raw deal." At one point the government intimated that it would be willing to offer Davis a pardon, should he ask for one. Davis refused that and he demanded that the government either give him a pardon or give him a trial, or admit that they had dealt unjustly with him. Mr. Street said: "He died 'unpardoned' by a government that was leery of giving him a public hearing." If Davis was as guilty as they claimed, why no trial???

Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute. The fact that they diddled around and finally released him without benefit of the trial he wanted proves that the North had no real case against secession. Over 600,000 boys, both North and South, were killed or maimed so the North could fight a war of conquest over something that the South did that was neither illegal or wrong. Yet they claim the moral high ground because the 'freed' the slaves, a farce at best.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Exactly right.

There were no Senators from NY during the first Congress under the Constitution because of the inability of the Hamiltonians and Clintonites to agree on who they should be.

[WhiskeyPapa]

"Right emanates from the muzzle of a gun." Mao Tse Tung

Obviously a principle shared by Abraham Lincoln.

"We must prevent the revival of the African slave-trade, and the enacting by Congress of a territorial slave code. We must prevent each of these things being done by either Congresses or courts, The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right and our thinking it wrong is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy.Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right. . . . Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the national Territories, and to overrun us here in these free States?

If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored—contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong: vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man; such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care, such as the Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance; such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said and undo what Washington did.

The rough man from Illinois in 1860.

Walt

[justshutupandtakeit]

What a brilliant ripost. How do you come up with such outstanding examples of wit? Do you listen in on a third grade playground?

[Non-Sequitur]

I realize that I differ from some of the other Northern supporters in this, but in my opinion there is no reason why a state should not be allowed to leave the Union. The Constitution is silent on the method but it would make sense that a state should be able to leave the Union in the same manner that it joined the Union in the first place, through a majority vote in Congress. The Constitution vests Congress with the responsibility of approving all other kinds of changes in the status of a state, removing a state altogether should be no different.

[Grand Old Partisan]

The seced states were not readmitted to the Union as in joining the USA, but that its Senators and Representaitves would be seated in Congress and that its Electoral Votes would count. Citizens of the rebel states were always citizens.

[Sloth]

From the Northern standpoint the entire transaction met the constitutional requirements because the U.S. Congress recognized a body of men as the loyal legislature of Virginia, and it was this body which petitioned Congress to approve dividing the state.

Well, that's mighty handy. So any time the Congress wants to create a new state within the boundaries of another, it can do so without the approval of that state's elected legislature by simply "recognizing" some cronies as the legislature instead.

You must be one of the "living document" people.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members...

Whatever you think, this was the rationale. The very firm stance of President Lincoln and may others was that --the--Union--could--not--be--dissolved--.

It is seen also in Texas v. White in 1869.

Walt

[safisoft]

Obviously you can't handle a serious person

Hmm. A SERIOUS person said:

Is there anything in that article which does not fit the catagory of BS?

And yet that same person said,

Silly sophistries don't work at FR

And went on to say,

So that slice of crap was worth posting twice?

And,

Sorry doofuss but you are the one who started with the insults

Just a thought, which kettle is black?

But then again, maybe justshutupandtakeit (thought provoking handle) is serious:

I'll bet every word of that "story" is a lie.

I am specific in the use of words

Oh, so justshutupandtakeit means to insult in specific ways?

Of course he didn't, he is a home schooler ideologue. They like the D.S.s cherry pick their quotations and often use those in direct contradiction of what was maintained by the authors.

Who dares oppose himself to such men and expects to be taken seriously?

I don't put much credence in crackpot historians. Where does that author teach- the Biloxi Institute for the Idiotically Inclined?

And once again, just to make sure we all understand who is REALLY series:

Obviously you can't handle a serious person

Note: All italics are by justshutupandtakeit in just this thread alone!

Note to justshutupandtakeit - maybe if this is indicative of seriousness, maybe you need to lighten up.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No, it is a lie because it doesn't make sense.

Would I believe some cock-and-bull story that confederate soldiers gang-raped Pennsylvania women or Maryland women? No, I would not. That is not consistent with their character just as it is not consistent with the character of the Union soldiers. In fact, both armies would have court-martialled and shot soldiers who did such things.

Next thing I expect to hear is that the Union soldiers who allegedly did this were Black.

[WhiskeyPapa]

You must be one of the "living document" people.

You are suggesting that traitors be given more power than loyal citizens.

Walt

[safisoft]

Oops. I missed one

Do you listen in on a third grade playground?

Please point out all other evidence of justshutupandtakeit's seriousness.

[Aurelius]

You are apparently a very bitter person, you are graruitously hostile and antagonistic and your screen name itself is insulting. It is very amusing to read your self description on your personal page. What is described there is a relaxed and pleasant person, but your online performance gives the total lie to that. Like Grand Old Partisan you have absolutely no tolerance for people whose worldview has any difference whatever from your personal ideology. Since your ideology is eccentric, to put it as kinly as possible, you must constantly encounter such "cognative dissonance", which may explain your bitterness. I recognize the danger of analyzing people from online performance, but, your online performance certainly projects the characteristics that I have described. If that isn't really you, then I would venture to suggest that maybe some behavior modification is in order.

[Non-Sequitur]

So any time the Congress wants to create a new state within the boundaries of another, it can do so without the approval of that state's elected legislature by simply "recognizing" some cronies as the legislature instead.

If the rest of the legislature is busy rebelling at the time I suppose they could.

[Grand Old Partisan]

The loyalist state government of Virginia approved the creation of West Virginia. To this day, the Commonwealth of Virginia, not to mention the Federal Government, recognizes the Unionist Governor of Virginia as the Governor of Virginia from 1861-1868 and the Senators and Representatives of that Unionist state government as Members of Congress.

[tet68]

So then there is no state sovereignty?
State rights are subject to congressional approval?
Forced to remain in a "voluntary" contract, isn't that oppression? It would seem that would be something the founders would have taken a dim view of.
Didn't they address that situation some where?
I believe they did.

[Aurelius]

The relevence of your post escapes me.

[Aurelius]

"What a brilliant ripost. How do you come up with such outstanding examples of wit? Do you listen in on a third grade playground?"

Pot calls kettle black.

[Sloth]

I'm suggesting that the U.S. Constitution be followed.

[safisoft]

If that isn't really you, then I would venture to suggest that maybe some behavior modification is in order.

Or, if we were to sink to the level displayed by some here, possibly a recommendation to push the "off" button until one could withstand a DUI stop.

Aurelius, some here are not worthy of discourse. Save your pearls for those less "serious".

[RenegadeNC]

Please provide any documentation that supports the idea that CITIZENS of a U.S. state can be completely denied representation in Congress for any reason.

"Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members..."
This addresses judging INDIVIDUALS in Congress...an individual congressman may possibly be judged and possibly even removed from office...but his congressional seat is still valid and would be filled by another representative in such a case...if in fact that seat represented a state which was still in the Union.