MONTGOMERY, February 27, 1861.The President of the United States: Being animated by an earnest desire to unite and bind together our respective countries by friendly ties, I have appointed M. J. Crawford, one of our most settled and trustworthy citizens, as special commissioner of the Confederate States of America to the Government of the United States; and I have now the honor to introduce him to you, and to ask for him a reception and treatment corresponding to his station and to the purpose for which he is sent. Those purposes he will more particularly explain to you. Hoping that through his agency. &c. [sic.]
JEFF'N DAVIS.
For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States. I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority for and in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the Government of the United States being furnished with like powers and authority, and with them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations, and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the premises, transmitting the same to the President of the Confederate States for his final ratification by and with the consent of the Congress of the Confederate States.
Given under my hand at the city of Montgomery this 27th day of February, A.D. 1861, and of the Independence of the Confederate States the eighty-fifth.
JEFF'N DAVIS.
ROBERT TOOMBS, Secretary of State.
The Commissioners to Mr. Seward.WASHINGTON CITY, March In, 1861.
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State of the United States.Sir: The undersigned have been duly accredited by the Government of the Confederate States of America as commissioners to the Government of the United States, and, in pursuance of their instructions, have now the honor to acquaint you with that fact, and to make known, through you to the President of the United States, the objects of their presence in this capital.
Seven States of the late Federal Union, having in the exercise of the inherent right of every free people to change or reform their political institutions, and through conventions of their people withdrawn from the United States and reassumed the attributes of sovereign power delegated to it, have formed a government of their own. The Confederate States constitute an independent nation, de facto and de jure, and possess a government perfect in all its parts, and endowed with all the means of self-support.
With a view to a speedy adjustment of all questions growing out of this political separation, upon such terms of amity and good will as the respective interests, geographical contiguity, and future welfare of the two nations may render necessary, the undersigned are instructed to make to the Government of the United States overtures for the opening of negotiations, assuring the Government of the United States that the President, Congress, and people of the Confederate States earnestly desire a peaceful solution of these great questions; that it is neither their interest nor their wish to make any demand which is not founded in strictest justice, nor do any act to injure their late confederates.
The undersigned have now the honor, in obedience to the instructions of their Government, to request you to appoint as early a day as possible, in order that they may present to the President of the United States the credentials which they bear and the objects of the mission with which they are charged.
We are, very respectfully, your obedient servants, [ Signed]
JOHN FORSYTH MARTIN J. CRAWFORD.
The desire of the Confederate states to resolve the question of their separation without a single drop of shed blood is rather evident in the above letters, carried by the Commissioners to Washington City, would you not agree? In the event that it's not immediately clear, please refer to my highlights of the same. The first letter makes it abundantly clear that the commissioners were sent to resolve ALL QUESTIONS surrounding the secession, including (as Jefferson Davis himself indicated in his book) the settlement of all debts owed to the United States.
Where does it say that? You have claimed that the seceding states can walk away, you claim that power lies in the Constitution. Where does the Constitution require them to compensate the remaining states for anything? If you claim that they can walk away then you have to believe that they are under no obligation to do anything about what they walk away from or what they walk away with.
I don't claim that the power to walk away "lies in the Constitution," but rather I am claiming that such power exists above the Constitution, in the inherent right of men to adjust their Governments as they see fit. Just as there was no National Convention on adding States to the Union in which the States in Congress assembled voted to allow each other into the union—but rather, a state-by-state accession to the Constitution—I see no reason why there should have been a National Convention (as suggested by Seward) to "allow" something which the States already have the power to do.
Would things have run more smoothly had the Confederates attempted to withdraw from the Federal union that way? As I've said in a previous post, perhaps, but I have my doubts.
The obligation of redressing all dues is clearly in the hands of the seceeding State, and if unpaid, a case could be made on the validity of using the force of war against it to reclaim such dues. I would tend to say, however, that the horrors committed against the South through the Civil War were far and above the notion of the "redress" of communal dues, and more of the same character as open and avert aggression, something which had no place in the usages of Christian war, particularly among supposed former allies. Furthermore, it is extremely important to distinguish a line between "using the forces of war to reclaim and redress all dues" and "to conquer and make subservient" a former State. The latter, which is what the North ultimately accomplished (de facto) by the Civil War, is inexcusable for any reason.
Ah, now you are placing restrictions on their actions. Before they could walk at will because they were sovereign and part of the deal voluntarily. Now you're claiming that they need justification. Well where does the Constitution place this restriction on them? Where does the Constitution require 'extreme grievance' before they can walk? What constitutes 'extreme grievance' in the first place?
I am not placing restrictions on their actions, but merely sharing my opinion of when the States are justified in seceeding. And as I said above, the power to do so does not exist in the Constitution, but rather, above it.
Towards the proposition you have made on previous threads that the States contain no inherent Sovereignty, I'd start with this quote:
Calhoun, John—Address at Fort Hill (1831)The great and leading principle is, that the General Government emanated from the people of the several States, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all of the people forming one aggregate political community; that the Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party, in the character already described; and that the several States, or parties, have a right to judge of its infractions; and in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of power not delegated, they have the right, in the last resort, to use the language of the Virginia Resolutions, "to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them." This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may,—State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other name,—I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on facts historically as certain as our revolution itself, and deductions as simple and demonstrative as that of any political or moral truth whatever; and I firmly believe that on its recognition depend the stability and safety of our political institutions.
... With these strong feelings of attachment, I have examined, with the utmost care, the bearing of the doctrine in question; and, so far from anarchical or revolutionary, I solemnly believe it to be the only solid foundation of our system, and of the Union itself; and that the opposite doctrine, which denies to the States the right of protecting their reserved powers, and which would vest in the General Government (it matters not through what department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereignty of the States, and of the Constitution itself, considered as the basis of a Federal Union.
And I'll close by asking again, if the States acceded to the Federal Constitution individually in their own sovereign capacity, why should they be denied the right to withdraw from the same? At what point does the Federal government become the aggressive overlord, operating above and beyond the consent of the Governed?
I hope I have addressed your previous posts in sufficient detail. Please accept my apologies for taking so long—Things have actually been a bit busy over here in the real world.
As always, I will continue to hold you in the
Warmest regards,
~dt~
To establish relations between countries, first and foremost, to the exclusion of all else. In other words, either Lincoln agreed to recognize the legality of the southern acts of secession or there was no reason for the commissioners to be there, because all other matters were secondary. Well, why should Lincoln have agreed to an ultimatum like that?
The desire of the Confederate states to resolve the question of their separation without a single drop of shed blood is rather evident in the above letters, carried by the Commissioners to Washington City, would you not agree? In the event that it's not immediately clear, please refer to my highlights of the same. The first letter makes it abundantly clear that the commissioners were sent to resolve ALL QUESTIONS surrounding the secession, including (as Jefferson Davis himself indicated in his book) the settlement of all debts owed to the United States.
I confess that nothing interests me less in what you think the Davis regime could have done or would have done or might have done. And I've no doubt that my questioning the sincerity of the offers or speculating on what Lincoln should have done or could have done or would have done would bore you to tears as well. What I am interested in is that if, in your world, states can come and go from the Union at will then what are they obligated to do. They have walked out, are no longer part of the Union, regardless of the wishes and desires and interest of the remaining states. So why should they be obligated to anything to do with the country that they just walked away from? Why should they care about debt or treaty obligations or the rights of the states remaining with the country they left? In your scenario they are obligated to do nothing. And the remaining states have no recourse whatsoever except the ultimate one of war. And how can you believe that the founding fathers would agree to that?
And I'll close by asking again, if the States acceded to the Federal Constitution individually in their own sovereign capacity, why should they be denied the right to withdraw from the same? At what point does the Federal government become the aggressive overlord, operating above and beyond the consent of the Governed?
The states can withdraw in the same manner as they join, with the consent of the other states. That is the only way to ensure that the rights of all the parties involved are protected because all questions of potential disagreement are settled to the satisfaction of all parties before the split. For states to unilaterally secede with no requirement that they settle matters of potential dispute, like debt or treaty obligations or matters like access to the Mississppi or other transportation links, means that the remaining states have no rights, they are due no protections, and their issues don't matter. And I would defy you to point out a single one of the founders that believed that.