Could the South Have Won?

NY Books ^ | June 2002 ed. | James M. McPherson

[4CJ]

I may take your advice and repair to the verandah --- if not with a mint julep, then perhaps a frozen Margarita and a well worn copy of "The South Was Right."

Enjoy them both ma'am, TSWR is my favorite.

[Huck]

So I guess the question that the Northern side has to answer is why they wanted to keep the Union together at all costs. OTOH, the question that the south has to answer is why did they want to remain slavers at all costs. On the whole, I'd rather have to answer the first question...

Good post. Someone knows their history. I'd like to know if you have any thoughts on this question you posed.

[varina davis]

Enjoy them both ma'am, TSWR is my favorite.

You might also enjoy this tome, now on e-bay (I'm not the seller): BOWERS, CLAUDE G. The Tragic Era: The Revolution After Lincoln The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass.: The Literary Guild of America, 1929 Cloth. No Jacket. First Edition. Spinelettering illegible, spine cloth has a small tear. Twelve years of carpet-baggers, political abuse, hypocrisy and scandal. The true story of the twelve tragic years that followed the death of Lincoln. They were years of revolutionary turmoil, w/the elemental passions predominant, & w/broken bones & bloody noses among the fighting factionalists. The prevailing note was one of tragedy, though, as we shall see, there was an abundance of comedy, & not a little of farce. Never have American public men in responsible positions, directing the destiny of the Nation, been so brutal, hypocritical, & corrupt.., 567 pgs.

"War For What" is also a great read.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Good post. Someone knows their history. I'd like to know if you have any thoughts on this question you posed.

Well article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution says:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

So we see from this that the U.S. Constitution takes precedence over any laws and state constitutions.  Furthermore, local judges are bound to obey the U.S. Constitution.

Given this alone, it was patently illegal for at least 12 of the 13 southern states to secede.  Tennessee was rather more clever about it than the others.  She did not secede from the Union, but rather dissolved her own government, the theory being that since there was now no Tennessee government, any obligations to the U.S. were null and void.  The problem with this line of thinking was that if this obligation was null and void, then all contracts and debts contracted by the state and the state's citizens were also null and void.  But the state never reneged on previous obligations, so their contention, while clever, was shaky at best.  Still, it was the best attempt of any of the southern states to get around the fact that secession was illegal.  I should note here that it was also illegal for the 13 colonies to secede from Britain - and it took 2 wars before Britain recognized the legality of the U.S.' secession.

I've heard that several state constitutions reserved the right to secede (I don't know much about this part), but by ratifying the U.S. Constitution, they conceded that all local laws took second place to the Constitution.  Thus they are presented with a conundrum.  Even if they are allowed to secede, they must obey the Constitution, which means they cannot secede.  Unlike southern apologists (Calhoun especially), Madison felt that secession was not something which could be done at will by a whim of the majority of each state.

[rustbucket]

Could the South have won?

[Born a Texan; butting in where I probably oughtn't; and being cheekier than I should be at the end of a teaching week- - - ]

Does anyone north of lower-hoootn-hollllar really care?

A few of us are trying to become at least slightly addicted to LIVING IN THE PRESENT.

Relax Quix. It's a good way to learn some history.

Rustbucket, PhD, 6th generation Texan

[Twodees]

He can also go to Cuba, it's closer and the food wouldn't be quite as alien, just much scarcer.

[davidjquackenbush]

If we get some business cards, they should say "Walt and Company."

Only if we can incorporate, like good Whigs. And maybe get a grant or two.

[Twodees]

You're right about the supremacy clause. Now, get out your copy of the US Constitution and find the clause which prohibits secession. That's all you have to do to prove your point. If it's there in the Constitution, then every state in the union is bound to it, irrevocably by virtue of the clause you cited. Saying that secession is patently illegal is easy. Citing the article, section and clause in the Constitution which prohibits secession isn't as easy.

I have been discussing this issue online since '95 and in other venues since '73. In all that time, nobody has ever cited the relevant clause in the Constitution which backs up the absurd claim that secession is prohibited by the Constitution. Maybe you'll be the first. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

[Non-Sequitur]

But he never waged war on his own, in order to receive high rank from a constitutional adventurer the way Admiral Farragut did, or some other prominent Union generals we could talk about.

Demuring is one thing. Accusing is another and in your above reply you accused Farragut and others of remaining with the Union solely for promotion, when, in fact, all these men could have received equivilent or higher positions down south, serving a man with less respect for constitutional law than you accuse Lincoln of having. They followed a higher loyalty, one which I have no doubt George Washington would have approved of. But instead of respecting their decision you find some ulterior motive for it. And then you have the gall to take offense when someone does that you your marble saint.

[Twodees]

[And maybe get a grant or two]

Couldn't live without that public teat, could you, quackenbush?

[4CJ]

Thank you much Ms. Davis - I appreciate the information, and the recommendations.

[Non-Sequitur]

On the other hand combatting a rebellion is a noble cause in and of itself.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

If the U.S. Constitution overrides any laws made by state governments how can they legally secede?  Nowhere is secession a right reserved to the states (not even the 10th amendment).

Look at it logically.  If they are bound by the Constitution, then they must accept the government as defined by the Constitution.  That alone make secession illegal.  By trying to deny the federally elected officials their constitutionally mandated oversight, they have overridden the supremacy clause.  Ergo secession is illegal

Note that I'm addressing only the legality of secession.  I'm saying nothing about the necessity of it.  After all, while it was illegal for the 13 colonies to secede from Britain, it was necessary.

[Aurelius]

"On the other hand combatting a rebellion is a noble cause in and of itself."

Were the actions of the British army in 1776 noble?

[Non-Sequitur]

Yes. They were following the orders of the crown trying to quell the American rebellion. The Americans did not pretend that their actions were legal and therefore were not surprised when they had to fight for their freedom. That is one difference between the founders of the United States and the founders of the confederacy. Another difference is that the confederates lost.

[Quix]

FAIR ENOUGH!

6TH GENERATION TEXAN.

HHHHHMMMMMMM [in good humor]

Does that make you a cross between an armadillo and a sidewinder or an armadillo and a very early wetback or an armadillo and a horned toad . . . or???

[stand watie]

FREE the southland NOW!

[Ditto]

So I guess the question that the Northern side has to answer is why they wanted to keep the Union together at all costs.

Short answer --- Survival. They knew that and independent slave republic with a 1000 mile border would not likely remain within those borders for long. Slavery could only remain a profitable endevour if there were ample territory to expand in order to absorb the rapidly growing population of slaves and to replenish the worn-out soil that resulted from intensive cash-crop agriculture. The slave economy was similar to a Ponzi scheme --- it could flourish only with every increasing rates of input in the form of new lands.

OTOH, the question that the south has to answer is why did they want to remain slavers at all costs.

See the above.

[Aurelius]

"On the other hand combatting a rebellion is a noble cause in and of itself."

I find nothing noble or just in the Union cause.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Very good.  I believe that the south had intentions of including much of the western hemisphere in their new nation.  I also believe that it ultimately wouldn't have worked, and the Civil War would have been fought all over again a generation later.