The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

American Thinker ^ | 5/20/2014 | James Longstreet

[Sherman Logan]

Several states explicitly reserved the right to leave in their ratifications.

This has been claimed for VA, NY and RI. Here's an article that IMO refutes all three claims.

http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/did-the-states-reserve-a-right-to-secede/

It has also been claimed that Texas reserved the right to secede when it entered the Union. So I went and looked up the Joint Resolution of Congress by which TX entered the Union.

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html

And the Texas legislature's acceptance of annexation.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/texan03.asp

Nothing in either document about secession.

[Sherman Logan]

Do you have a reference for the VT secession?

[Georgia Girl 2]

I just understand revisionist history and southern loathing people who come on every Southern thread to trash the South. That would be you. :-)

[BroJoeK]

catfish1957: "Bozos like you are the reason I quit participating in WBTS threads..."

So, this is how you "quit"?

catfish1957: "Every point I see you responded with a weak "Nanny nanny Boo Boo" No he wasn't" counter."

You made baseless accusations, without presenting any evidence to support them.
I made the only response possible, which is words to the effect of "I disagree".
If you have "evidence" to present, I will explain why your "evidence" is just so much nonsense.

catfish1957: "or Hell, in point 1 you even admitted (AND SUPPORTED) Lincoln circumvention of the constitution as needed."

Article 1, Section 9, Item 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

catfish1957: "I am now certain that you are a reincarnation of N-S, and look forward to when Jim Robinson boots your ass off again for the liberal views you spew while engaging in needless Dixie bashing.
F Off, I am through with the likes of you."

You obviously have a vivid imagination, but your accusation here is no more accurate than anything else you've posted.

Have a nice day!

[achilles2000]

You are right about Texas. Like Vermont, however, it entered the Union by its own treaty, which raises its own issues. I do believe that there was something in the treaty of annexation that provided for a possible partition of the state. Texas gave up a huge amount of territory in connection with annexation, btw. Perhaps Texas should try to reclaim parts of NM, OK, COLO, and WY ;-)

As for Vermont, the source is Dwyer’s book on the War, and the discussion is fairly brief. More recently, VT had an active secession movement started by the leftists and hippies who moved there and who were in a snit over Bush’s policies.

[Sherman Logan]

The treaty of annexation allowed for up to four more states to be carved out of TX, with consent of Congress and the TX legislature.

However, this is more or less a non-issue, as the Constitution allows for an infinite number of states to be carved out of any state in the Union under the same terms. :)

Seems to me it would be an excellent way for a political party to ensure something close to permanent control of the Senate by a little gerrymandering.

[Sherman Logan]

Texas gave up a huge amount of territory in connection with annexation, btw.

More accurately, Texas gave up claims to an immense amount of territory. Most of it wasn't even vaguely under Texan control and never had been.

In fact, Texas didn't control much of the territory it now holds for several decades after annexation. Inadequate support in fighting the Comanches and Kiowa, etc. was one of the reasons mentioned, in passing, in the Texas Declaration of Secession before, of course, spending 20 or 30 paragraphs ranting about slavery and the inferiority of the black race.

[BroJoeK]

achilles2000: "Your use of the term “slave-power” suggests a mind marinated in the abolitionist tracts of the 1850s."

"The Slave Power" is a historical fact, accurately describing the extra power provided by the Constitution to slave-owners, in letting them represent 3/5 of their non-voting slaves.
It made slave-owning states dominant in American politics from 1787 until 1860.

Here is more data on it:

The Slave Power, The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780-1860 by Leonard Richards c 2000.

achilles2000: "The idea of a “Perpetual Union” was obviously unworkable and dropped.
Several states explicitly reserved the right to leave in their ratifications."

Not "several", Virginia & New York.
But you are simply not reading my posts, and instead respond robotically with talking points, regardless.
As I've said now numerous times, our Founders recognized a possible necessity for "disunion" -- just as THEY "disunioned" from the old Articles of Confederation.
So they provided several legal methods for changing laws, and the Constitution itself.
They also acknowledged "disunion" by mutual consent, or as a result of breach of contract.

What no Founder advocated was disunion "at pleasure", for no lawful reason.
Instead, they considered the Constitution a contract, which had to be faithfully fulfilled, barring some breach.

Even those state signing statements you mention, DO NOT reserve the right to "withdraw" at pleasure.
Instead, they list necessary conditions -- i.e., "oppression" or "injury".

And none of those existed in November 1860.

achilles2000: "The power to force states to remain in the union was not among those powers.
Because it was not delegated, the right to leave was reserved."

But that argument was not made by the Founders themselves -- it came later.
The Founders believed that disunion should only be by mutual consent, or for material cause, such as "oppression", etc.

But more important -- and this is how you know if you are a pro-Confederate propagandist -- if you think secession "caused" the Civil War, you are deliberately misinformed.
In Fact, there was no war because of the existence of slavery.
There was no war when the Deep South declared its secession.
There was no war when the Deep South formed its Confederacy, or when Upper South and Border States first voted on the question of secession.

But war came, for one reason only: because the Confederacy provoked, then started, then formally declared war (May 6, 1861), then sent military aid to support secessionists within Union states, like Missouri.

achilles2000: "I suppose you also think that the Constitution provides the USSC with the power of Judicial Review, which made the AGENT the sole determiner of its own powers."

Jefferson himself disagreed with Chief Justice Marshall's 1804 ruling in Marbury vs Madison, but the ruling stood, and nobody has seriously challenged the Court's authority on this since then -- even when the Court came off the rails in the Dred-Scott decision of 1857.
And, iirc, there was precedent in a ruling President Washington sought and received from the Court, authorizing some action not specified in the Constitution.

So we are talking about the Founding Fathers here, and what they intended by what they wrote.
And the sad reality is that, as a defender of "strict interpretation" of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court has proved to be a very, very weak reed.

achilles2000: "I also assume you disagree with Jefferson and Madison on Interposition and Nullification."

On "nullification", there is a long complex history, involving such Founders as Jefferson & Madison, plus the next generation, including Andrew Jackson.
At one point even Madison himself claimed that neither he nor Jefferson intended to mean that individual states have a "right" to nullify laws they don't like.

Naturally, I agree with Madison.

achilles2000: "In sum, if you can read Perpetual Union and Judicial Review into the Constitution and Interposition and Nullification out of it, then swallowing the New Deal, Medicaid, Medicare, the Department of Education, ObamaCare, Obama’s executive orders, etc. would not be difficult.
They just represent the growth of the “Living Constitution.” "

The conservative opinion is that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of our Founders original intent, as modified by various constitutional ammendments.
Of course there's no doubt that Founders never even imagined, much less intended the massive bloated monstrosity government we have today.

[rockrr]

Isn’t it funny how the specter of that preeminent boogieman Non Sequitur still makes the LCL’s wet their panties? LOL

[BroJoeK]

Achilles2000: "Even further outside their delegated powers, they did not submit the draft Constitution to the Congress, where it would have required unanimous approval of the states.
Instead, they, again acting unlawfully under the Articles, presented the new document of association directly to the states for ratification..."

Bubba Ho-Tep to achilles2000: "Completely untrue.
Resolution of Congress of September 28, 1787, Submitting the Constitution to the Several States. Friday Sept. 28. 1787."

Thanks for that Bubba!
Astonishing how absolutely nothing these guys say can be taken at face value.

[BroJoeK]

Sherman Logan: "Here's an article that IMO refutes all three claims.
Did the states reserve a right to secede?

Thanks for that! I had not seen this argument before, though the quote from Madison on New York's reservations is key to my understanding:

"My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan.
Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved.
The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever.
It has been so adopted by the other States.
An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only.
In short any condition whatever must vitiate the ratification.
What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present.
I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.

“This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started in Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection"

[BroJoeK]

Georgia Girl 2: "I just understand revisionist history and southern loathing people who come on every Southern thread to trash the South.
That would be you. :-)"

Oh? "Southern thread"? Now there's a term I never saw before -- so you claim this is an official "Southern thread", and all others need not post?
Hmmmmmm....

Well, FRiend, let me explain -- half my extended family is Southern -- scattered all over seven southern states.
Some trace their roots to Civil War era, others to Indians that lived in the Southern Appalachian mountains.
So I NEVER trash "the South", or any who served as Confederate soldiers.
Some of those were my distant cousins.

But, I have no respect -- zero, zip, nada -- for the Slave-Power and Southern politicians who led their people into first secession and then declared war on the United States, a war that took over 600,000 lives.
And then they refused to negotiate anything short of "unconditional surrender", unless it allowed them to keep their "peculiar institution" of slavery.

The truth is that those people (slave-power leaders) were as stupid and arrogant as human beings can get, and they deserve the just condemnation of history.

So, I'm sorry if that offends you, especially on this, ahem, "Southern thread"...

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "Isn’t it funny how the specter of that preeminent boogieman Non Sequitur still makes the LCL’s wet their panties? LOL"

LOL, you know, I'm conflicted: not sure if I shouldn't take that as a compliment -- to be compared with Non Sequitur who, as they say, knew more about the CW in his little finger than I do in my whole head.
Of course, he was a little short fused, and I don't agree with his other views...

But he did make for lively fireworks on these threads.

Here's a key point to remember -- along with the loss of Non Sequitur (& successors), there are also at least a dozen foul-mouthed "lost causers" we never hear from these days.
Whether they were banned, or politely told to go away, or maybe just wised-up, I can't say, but I do think there's an overall difference in CW thread-tone compared to years ago...

[Georgia Girl 2]

I’m sure I’ll see you spewing your nonsense on the next Southern thread. Gotta run put up the stars and bars for another great day in the Confederacy. :-)

[Sherman Logan]

there are also at least a dozen foul-mouthed "lost causers" we never hear from these days.

I used to have discussions regularly with some who seemed to think that obsessive hatred of Lincoln and a burning desire to fight the WBTS over again is the defining characteristic of a true American conservative.

They always seemed utterly oblivious to the obvious (to me at least) fact that this was a position held by probably well under 10% of Americans. Not exactly an ideal approach to building a coalition capable of retaking control of America from those intent on its destruction.

I've also noticed two odd positions commonly held by neo-Confederates.

1. A belief that defense of slavery had little or nothing to do with secession or war. This is obviously a psychological imperative, as slavery simply cannot be defended successfully. But what is odd is the fallback position, that the war was fought over taxes or tariffs. As if somehow the death of 700,000+ Americans was fully justified by slight differences in tariff rates. Wait, what?

Allied with this is the claim that the South would have been a bastion of free trade. Again, a defensible position. But generally held along with a belief that America today should adopt protectionist practices of exactly the type they claim justified war in 1860!

[Georgia Girl 2]

President Lincoln issued an executive order for the arrest and imprisonment of northern newspaper reporters and editors. He shut down 300 northern newspapers and held 14,000 political prisoners. Lincoln arrested war critic US Representative Clement Vallandigham from Ohio and exiled him to the Confederacy. Lincoln attempted to arrest and imprison the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Lincoln’s destruction of states rights continues to this day.

Truthfully Lincoln was just another mediocre guy who got himself elected to an office with responsibilities above his paygrade. Similar to the one in office today.

[DoodleDawg]

Texas gave up a huge amount of territory in connection with annexation, btw.

Texas didn't have much of a choice. Under the terms of the Missouri Compromise slavery was prohibited above parallel 36°30′ north. Had Texas kept her territory north of that then she couldn't have been admitted as a slave state.

[ifinnegan]

Appreciate the post.

My only comment is on the idea of loss of capital.

I don’t think it can be looked at that way because the people did not disappear.

When the planters had to pay wages, they may have made more money.

[rockrr]

and I don't agree with his other views...

I'm not sure what views you might be objecting to. NS was just as solid a conservative as anyone here. What got him in trouble was a misunderstanding about homos in the military. His comment was something to the effect that he thought the military strong enough to withstand the social engineering that came with ignoring DADT.

There was nothing condoning of homo behavior there but his adversaries seized upon it as an opportunity to get rid of him.

What else was he wrong about?

[rockrr]

I’m struggling between “Lincoln the Tyrant” and “Lincoln’s destruction of states rights continues to this day” for the most idiotic hyperbolic comment award.