Was Secession Treason?

Daveblack ^ | June 30, 2003 | DaveBlack

[stainlessbanner]

America was founded on a revolution against England, yet many Americans now believe the myth that secession was treasonable. The Declaration of Independence was, in fact, a declaration of secession. Its final paragraph declares inarguably the ultimate sovereignty of each state: [T]hat these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved of all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. Following the Declaration of Independence, each colony established by law the legitimacy of its own sovereignty as a state. Each one drew up, voted upon, and then ratified its own state constitution, which declared and defined its sovereignty as a state. Realizing that they could not survive upon the world stage as thirteen individual sovereign nations, the states then joined together formally into a confederation of states, but only for the purposes of negotiating treaties, waging war, and regulating foreign commerce. For those specific purposes the thirteen states adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781, thus creating the United States of America. The Articles of Confederation spelled out clearly where the real power lay. Article II said, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” The Article also prohibited the secession of any member state (“the union shall be perpetual,” Article XIII) unless all of the states agreed to dissolve the Articles. Six years later, the Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia, supposedly to overhaul the Articles. The delegates in Philadelphia decided to scrap the Articles and to propose to the states a different charter—the United States Constitution. Its purpose was to retain the sovereignty of the states but to delegate to the United States government a few more powers than the Articles had granted it. One major difference between the two charters was that the Constitution made no mention of “perpetual union,” and it did not contain any prohibition against the secession of states from the union. The point was raised in the convention: Should there be a “perpetual union” clause in the Constitution? The delegates voted it down, and the states were left free to secede under the Constitution, which remains the U. S. government charter today. After the election of Thomas Jefferson, the Federalist Party in New England was so upset that for more than ten years they plotted to secede. The party actually held a secession convention in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814. Although they ultimately decided not to leave the Union, nobody really questioned the fundamental right of secession. In fact, the leader of the whole movement, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering, said that secession was the principle of the American Revolution. Even John Quincy Adams, who was a staunch unionist, said in an 1839 speech about secession that in “dissolving that which can no longer bind, we would have to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.” Likewise, Alexander Hamilton said, “to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised.” These men, and many others, understood that there was a right of secession, and that the federal government would have no right to force anybody to remain in the Union. Some people see the Confederates as traitors to their nation because many Confederate leaders swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States when joining the United States Army. However, at that time people were citizens of individual states that were members of the United States, so that when a state seceded, the citizens of that state were no longer affiliated with the national government. Remember, the Constitution did not create an all-powerful national democracy, but rather a confederation of sovereign states. The existence of the Electoral College, the Bill of Rights, and the United States Senate clearly shows this, and although it is frequently ignored, the 10th Amendment specifically states that the rights not given to the federal government are the rights of the states and of the people. But if states do not have the right to secede, they have no rights at all. Lincoln’s war destroyed the government of our founding fathers by the “might makes right” method, a method the Republicans used to quash Confederates and loyal Democrats alike. After the war, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was arrested and placed in prison prior to a trial. The trial was never held, because the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Salmon Portland Chase, informed President Andrew Johnson that if Davis were placed on trial for treason the United States would lose the case because nothing in the Constitution forbids secession. That is why no trial of Jefferson Davis was held, despite the fact that he wanted one.  So was secession treason? The answer is clearly No.

[capitan_refugio]

Not nearly as conservative as I'd like. But, considering that there is a sizable socialist contingent in this country, any principled person who is right-of-center is prefered over the alternative.

There is a difference between idealism versus pragmatism.

[capitan_refugio]

Based on the 1860 Census, there were fewer than 300 slaves in New Jersey and about 3,000 slaves in Delaware. Kansas recorded 2. Nebraska recorded 15. In the other Northern States slavery had been abolished. (This is not to say that furtive slavery did not exist in places like southern Ohio and Illinois - but it was in very small numbers and was illegal.)

Compare this with the approximately 3,890,000 slaves that show up in the 1860 census from the Southern and border states. The border states are defined as Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. The CSA "claim" Ky and Mo as their own, so that leaves Maryland. Maryland had over 87,000 slaves and nearly seceded.

So you compare fewer than 100,000 (most in one state) versus 3.8 million.

For the South, slavery was very much the issue with regard to secession. It is in every secession document and was on the tongue of every secession leader. The South wanted political parity, at least in the Senate, so it could preserve its "peculiar institution." When it was apparent that the slave-holding states would eventually lose parity because "free" states were beginning to enter the Union on the Plains and in the West, the South bolted. Notions of "States rights" and "State sovereignty" are just blowing smoke.

[Arkinsaw]

Notions of "States rights" and "State sovereignty" are just blowing smoke.

Again, you attempt to tie the political concepts of States Rights and State Sovereignty to the slavery issue for all time. This is very similar to the folks who attempt to ban all firearms because somebody got killed once. Ignoring the fact that firearms can also serve useful purposes and are not inherently evil in and of themselves.

[x]

Your quote refers to the conditions of the blockade. You couldn't get those profits during peacetime, and it would have made little sense to spend millions on a war to make a profit on the trickle of cotton that could get through the blockade.

The site you linked to has some problems. It has trouble distinguishing between the "Morrill Tariff" and the "Tariff of Abomination[s]" a generation before. And it doesn't acknowledge that tariffs were low in the period leading up to the war. The fact that so many Confederate websites are shaky on the facts or overly selective of them, doesn't inspire confidence in their case or do much to resolve disputes.

Did the South really pay 87% of tariff revenue? Leaving aside the fact that much government revenue came from Western land sales which didn't fall heavily on Southerners or Northerners, it's hard to see how that could be possible. Did Southern planters pay more in tariffs than Northern bankers or landlords? Would poor or middling Southern farmers or mechanics have paid more in tariffs than their Northern counterparts? That's doubtful. The Constitution mandated that taxes be proportional, so it's hard to see how the discrepancy could be so extreme.

Of course protective tariffs levied for the benefit of industry do benefit those who establish industries, while others may have to pay more for manufactured goods, but there was nothing stopping Southerners from starting their own industries. In the days of Madison and Monroe, Southerners were gung-ho to start up home industries. It was the seafaring New Englanders who opposed protection in those days. Why did things change? New Englanders took the initiative in setting up factories. Southern society closed down when slavery was threatened. And plantation owners came to trust a temporary cotton boom and think that it would last forever.

A lower tariff policy would probably have been preferable, but the issue wasn't worth going to war over, nor was it the reason why the rebellion began. It would also have been desireable if Republicans had simply left tariff questions on hold until the larger crisis of the union had passed, but the tariff wasn't the reason for secession or war.

This is a little like the "why didn't Lincoln just pay the slaveowners to emancipate the slaves" controversy. The answer is that slaveholders weren't looking for money and weren't going to free their slaves. They were interested in the survival and expansion of slavery. So too, radical Deep South slaveowners weren't so much concerned with the tariff, so much as with getting their own country.

[Non-Sequitur]

"Cotton could be bought in the South for three cents a pound and sold for forty cents and upwards to a dollar a pound, at the peak of market conditions, in England. The profit on about a 1,000 bales of cotton was around $250,000."

It looks to me like they are referring to cotton sold during the war.

The North wanted the sole franchise to export the cotton to England, they just couldn't enforce it without blocking the Southern ports.

In the year prior to the war almost all cotton was exported directly from the southern ports to their destination, usually in Europe. Of the 3.1 million bales of cotton exported in 1869, 1.8 million bales or 60 percent was exported from New Orleans alone. You claim seems to be rather bogus.

(Now the FedGov has justified themselves for taking control with the "Warehouse Act" which gives them control of licensing all who export a commodity to foreign lands)

That's not what the Warehouse Act said at all. Basically the warehousing regulations state that dutie on imports are payable only when and if they are shipped to the ultimate customer. What it prevented was, for example, an item shipped from London to New York with an ultimate destination in Cuba from having to pay duties in New York. So long as it never left the bonded warehouse no duties needed to be paid.

About one-quarter of England's economy was dependent upon cotton.

Crap.

[Non-Sequitur]

What were they supposed to do when the Union was asked to leave the fort that was no longer theirs to hold?

And why was it no longer the Union's to hold? Because South Carolina said so? Fort Sumter was located on property deeded to the U.S. by the legislature of South Carolina. It was constructed on a man-made island. Made, by the way, from granite shipped down from New England. It was the property of the U.S. government.

When are you people who ignore truth going to stop parroting the politically correct line that the North was good and the South was evil when the truth was that THE NORTH ALSO HAD SLAVES DURING THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGRESSION.

But the south was the one who was willing to start a war to protect their slaves.

[Arkinsaw]

And why was it no longer the Union's to hold? Because South Carolina said so? Fort Sumter was located on property deeded to the U.S. by the legislature of South Carolina. It was constructed on a man-made island. Made, by the way, from granite shipped down from New England. It was the property of the U.S. government.

Now here you have a point. Ownership does not make for sovereignty however.

I've always wondered how it would have gone over if South Carolina had demanded the property taxes for the Fort. Would the US have paid? It would have been interesting to see how the county sheriff coming out to evict Major Anderson would have been handled rather than a military attack. Would the US have fired on local civil officials? And if they did, would it have been received as badly in the north as the cannonade was received? In any event, a slightly humorous mental picture.

[Non-Sequitur]

I've always wondered how it would have gone over if South Carolina had demanded the property taxes for the Fort. Would the US have paid? It would have been interesting to see how the county sheriff coming out to evict Major Anderson would have been handled rather than a military attack. Would the US have fired on local civil officials? And if they did, would it have been received as badly in the north as the cannonade was received? In any event, a slightly humorous mental picture.

Alas, South Carolina was not in a position to sell Fort Sumter for back taxes. Otherwise the Civil War would have been the Civil Action (chuckle, snort).

The process that the U.S. used to acquire the land that Fort Sumter was built on was the same process used to acquire any land for the government. And the process was very simple. A state, South Carolina in this instance, through its members of Congress and its senators, argued that the National Interest required that a fort be built, such as one in the middle of Charleston Harbor. The necessary legislation would pass Congress and be signed by the President. Then the state legislature would pass a law granting title (if the state owned the property) or affirming title (if the land was privately owned) to the United States. It is important to note that then, and now, the government refused to accept property where there was any other restriction. The state gave up all rights it might have in the property. Otherwise Congress would refuse to appropriate the necessary funds to build the installation. The one general exception was a clause inserted to allow state officials to enter the Federal property to seize fugitives from justice or to serve civil process papers. And it is important to note that the title given to the United States was fee simple, with specific notice that the property was exempt from any state or local taxes. Except for the qualification that the property could be entered to seize fugitives, the property passed in perpetuity to the Federal government. Then, as now, states love it when the government pumps money into their cities so the necessary legislation was passed quickly.

So Fort Sumter was the property of the federal government completely and forever, unless the government decided to dispose of it.

[Arkinsaw]

So Fort Sumter was the property of the federal government completely and forever, unless the government decided to dispose of it.

Well, I don't think there is any question of ownership. But sovereignty I would debate. Such would depend on whether secession was legal :-) Kuwaitis and Japanese own property in the US, but as for applying Kuwaiti or Japanese law over it, thats another matter.

[Non-Sequitur]

But sovereignty I would debate. Such would depend on whether secession was legal :-) Kuwaitis and Japanese own property in the US, but as for applying Kuwaiti or Japanese law over it, thats another matter.

There is, I think, a difference between property owned by foreign private individuals. Embassys, on the other hand, are a different matter. Those are considered foreign soil and those countries can exercise their laws over it.

Look at a similar matter, that of the naval base at Guantanamo Bay. We hold that through a treaty signed with the government of Cuba over a hundred years ago. When Castro seized power he unilaterally voided the treaty and demanded the U.S. leave. The U.S. has refused for over 40 years and has continued to pay the required nominal rent into an government account in Europe. If the Davis regime was within its rights to demand Fort Sumter and to shell it when the Lincoln Administration refused to leave then wouldn't the Castro regime be within its rights to shell Guantanamo Bay?

[capitan_refugio]

"Again, you attempt to tie the political concepts of States Rights and State Sovereignty to the slavery issue for all time."

Not at all. I am not tieing them together; in fact, I am trying to point out there is no linkage. Secession and the resultant Civil War were very much about the South's concerns over the expansion of slavery.

Civil War would not have broken out over interpretations of the Tenth Amendment. Nor should it have broken out because of the election of Lincoln. It was the specter of the loss of control that caused the South to bolt. It was the armed insurrection of the South that started the War.

Your analogy to the firearms issue is baseless.

[Arkinsaw]

If the Davis regime was within its rights to demand Fort Sumter and to shell it when the Lincoln Administration refused to leave then wouldn't the Castro regime be within its rights to shell Guantanamo Bay?

I actually don't think it was within its rights. The Fort was owned by the US as you said. But, with secession (assuming it was legal), sovereignty would have transferred back to South Carolina. Unless there was some agreement between South Carolina and the US for it to maintain sovereignty even after a withdrawal from the Union. I am not particularly familiar with the details of the paperwork on Fort Sumter so I don't know if that is the case or not and could be persuaded either way depending on the evidence. There is such an agreement between the US and Cuba re: Guantanamo that details all that though.

As for you final comment. My position throughout the thread has been the defense of secession as a legitimate power and an effective tool for ensuring that the central government is the servant rather than master. If your argument is not with secession as a generic concept, and is instead just with the South's use of it, then we are clear. But I perceived you pointing out the South's use of it as evidence of its illegitimacy. If that perception is wrong just say so.

[Blood of Tyrants]

You mean the U.S. government that no longer was in control of the South and the South no longer recognized it's authority in the sovreign Confederate States? Please! Don't try to tell me that once a government does something that is impossible to undo it! Next thing you'll tell me is that the U.S. never borle the treaties it made with the Indians.

And the North was equally willing to allow slavery in four Northern states while pretending that the war was about the abolition of slavery!

Give me a break!

[Blood of Tyrants]

So because they had fewer slaves, they were morally superior? How far will you go to try to make up history? That is like saying a person who rapes only two children is morally superior to one who rapes 50!

[Blood of Tyrants]

The difference is only how quickly the Constitution is shredded. Bush has signed and has indicated he will sign numerous bils that are flat out unconstitutional. And he wants 4 more years?

If we are going to hell in a hand cart, at least let the Rats be the ones driving.

[hobbes1]

If we are going to hell in a hand cart, at least let the Rats be the ones driving.

All of you neo confederates share one common trait, with the treasonous repatriates.....

All Sore Losermen.......

[rebel]

Secession is still my dream!

[Blood of Tyrants]

Kiss my Confederate ass. You already have kissed the asses of all the history writers and swallowed all the crap they have fed you.

[Blood of Tyrants]

P.S. all you stupik Yankees share a common trait with the gwhore lovers, a willingness to believe anything.

[Non-Sequitur]

Give me a break!

You keep asking for a break. Are you that badly in need of one?

Don't try to tell me that once a government does something that is impossible to undo it!

No, governments can undo actions made earlier. It's just that the Davis regimes way to 'undo' it took the form of shelling the fort into surrender.

And the North was equally willing to allow slavery in four Northern states while pretending that the war was about the abolition of slavery!

Slavery was allowed in 15 states but the southern states chose rebellion instead.