It's really too bad that the southern politicians didn't submit their "secession" theory for consideration to the Congress (like the Consitutional Convention did) or to the Supreme Court. Hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved.
But the southern politicians were desperate. They thought that the institution of slavery was in jeopardy and they erroneously thought that slavery was a vital part of southern culture. (They even had some wonderful "theories" to demonstrate the value of slavery.) So rather than submitting their "secession" theory to any of the other interested parties (the people of the United States, the government of the United States, the other states), the southern politicians decided to gamble all and just issue unilateral declarations of "secession." Slavery was so manifestly vital that these political stewards gambled with (to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence) their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. And they crapped out. And they even lost the institution of slavery.
And 140 years later, we still have a few among us who insist that these southern politicians were nothing less than unrecognized geniuses, statesmen of the first order, that their magnificent theories were free of any and all doubts, and that it is all because of one evil man (Abraham Lincoln) that we are now forced to live lives of perpetual servitude and misery. It's just downright pitiful, it is.
Well, in view of that fine performance by the southern politicians, I think we can be pretty sure of one thing. If there ever is a next time that any state or community wishes to unilaterally withdraw from the United States, the proponents will find another name for their theory. Any goodwill that ever existed for "secession" has been pretty much all used up.
It's really too bad that the southern politicians didn't submit their "secession" theory for consideration to the Congress
That would not have worked. Can you imagine?
"BTW, Secretary of Treasury Chase, you see we don't want to pay our money anymore to fund your schemes up north. We were thinking we would open our own ports, charge little if no tariffs for incoming ships, really expand on this free trade idea, and send our cotton to Britain where we would get more for it and not have to pay on the backend from northern manufacturers after they refined our own product."
would have just worked wonders I imagine < /sarcasm>
Your statements are (yet again) completely contradicted by historical fact. “Unqualified ratification?” In Post #224 (of the thread entitled ‘What Motivated Southerners To Defend The Indefensible?’) I observed that the ratification documents of several States specifically reserved the right of secession. Upon your request to do so (in Post #225 of that thread), I quoted the relevant portions of those documents (please see Post #226). Do you consider a document containing an explicit reservation of the right of unilateral secession to represent “unqualified ratification?” How about three such documents – or more, if we include those that implicitly reserved the right? Or do you simply not read the information that is posted at your own request?
Furthermore, the new government was not formed “by the people of the United States.” I refer you to Article VII of the United States Constitution:
”The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same...”
See any mention of “the people of the United States?” As Mr. Madison noted in Federalist No. 39:
“In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established...
”On examining [this] relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America [as you claim], given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State - the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national but a federal act.
”That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors - the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation - is obvious from this single consideration: that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national constitution...”
An antiquated viewpoint? Consider Mr. Justice Thomas’ opinion in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995):
“The ultimate source of the Constitution's authority is the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole. The ratification procedure erected by Article VII makes this point clear...the people of the several States are the only true source of power... it would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation...As Chief Justice Marshall put it, -[n]o political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass.- McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 403 (1819)...”
In other words, “(a) new government was formed” by the people of the individual States.
It's really too bad that the southern politicians didn't submit their "secession" theory for consideration to the Congress (like the Consitutional Convention did) or to the Supreme Court. Hundreds of thousands of lives might have been saved.
I did not post this statement. Please address your comments to the author.
But the southern politicians were desperate. They thought that the institution of slavery was in jeopardy and they erroneously thought that slavery was a vital part of southern culture. (They even had some wonderful "theories" to demonstrate the value of slavery.) ... Slavery was so manifestly vital that these political stewards gambled with (to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence) their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. And they crapped out. And they even lost the institution of slavery.
As I observed previously:
Those who find themselves unable to prove secession unconstitutional inevitably play the ‘slavery card.’
Congratulations.
And 140 years later, we still have a few among us who insist that these southern politicians were nothing less than unrecognized geniuses, statesmen of the first order, that their magnificent theories were free of any and all doubts, and that it is all because of one evil man (Abraham Lincoln) that we are now forced to live lives of perpetual servitude and misery. It's just downright pitiful, it is.
Facts, my friend – you might wish to consider the facts. If certain of Mr. Lincoln’s actions were unconstitutional, it was not because ‘southern politicians’ traveled north, stopped by the White House, and forced him at gunpoint to violate his oath. As for the issue of secession, one Professor of History at Harvard University recently observed:
“(T)he proponents of secession had a strong constitutional argument, probably a stronger argument than the nationalists advanced.”
If there is anything “downright pitiful” about these debates, it is the refusal of some participants to recognize that simple truth...
;>)