Home › Forums › The U.S. Civil War › Was seccession legal?
- This topic has 7 voices and 14 replies.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 4, 2005 at 4:04 am #57
nemesisenforcer
ParticipantI know this is probably one of those questions that will never get asked, but I was just wondering what your take on it was.
November 4, 2005 at 7:25 am #4298DonaldBaker
ParticipantSecession was technically legal in 1861, but now it is not. The irony was that Southerners (Madison, Jefferson, Pinckney etc…) contributed the most to the creation of the Constitutuion. Southerners had such a tremendous amount of influence over the fashioning of our early republic that it seems almost hypocritical of them to turn their backs on it when it began to threaten their interests. Some have argued that if Lincoln had allowed the Southern states to secede, they would have eventually negotiated to return to the union. As a matter of fact, some have argued that Lincoln pushed the South into secession by not dispelling their fears of his political views. At any rate, the Civil War was avoidable, but it had been brewing since the 1840’s. Only the Mexican War and the efforts of Henry Clay postponed a civil war from happening much earlier. Some might not realize that John Calhoun’s Nullification Theory was actually first introduced at the Constitutional Convention when Massachusetts threatened to secede because it feared Virginia was going to dominate the new nation. America was a nation founded on compromises and when those compromises ceased to satisfy the interests of all sections, the republic’s delicate structure collapsed. The dark memories of our Civil War, and the increasing complexity of our economy, and the changing world around us has reconstituted our political thinking into a more unified national structure, but underneath this more stable structure lies deep rooted fractures that threaten to tear it apart again if neglected.
November 4, 2005 at 9:47 pm #4299nemesisenforcer
ParticipantInteresting theories. I’ll have to digest them for a while with my Chinese buffet lunch.
November 4, 2005 at 10:30 pm #4300Phidippides
KeymasterIf secession was legal up to 1861, but became illegal thereafter, it brings up a new question – should secession be legal today?
It seems like secession should be legal even today so that the United States reflects states that are united in spirit, not only in letter. By preventing a state from seceding with the force of law, the federal government has assumed a lot of power - moreso than I believe it was supposed to get when the country was founded. Of course, it is unlikely that a state would secede, but the option should be available as a last resort.
On a related note - Donnie, I have read only a bit of your thesis rough draft so far, but I was wondering if you thought the same spirit of the Great Awakening in South Carolina influenced it when it seceded from the Union. As it was the first state to secede, it was made of bold, probably fiery people. The South Carolina secession document is an interesting read.November 9, 2005 at 4:59 am #4301DonaldBaker
ParticipantOn a related note – Donnie, I have read only a bit of your thesis rough draft so far, but I was wondering if you thought the same spirit of the Great Awakening in South Carolina influenced it when it seceded from the Union. As it was the first state to secede, it was made of bold, probably fiery people. The South Carolina secession document is an interesting read.
South Carolina was the slave state most dependent on the practice. It had the largest black population and the most to lose if Lincoln and the Republicans ever decided to abolish slavery. Therefore, more Fire-Eaters (pro-secessionists) would have popped up there. Ironically, the ministers in South Carolina (and the Deep South as a whole) wrote adamantly about the doctrines that supported slavery. All the passages where the Bible says "Servants obey your masters," were emphasized over and over. The Plantation Gentry were far too influential in South Carolina politics for South Carolina to go in any direction other than secession. Sadly, I do not think the Awakening (1st or 2nd) had much influence on the secession movement. I think secular motives dominated the logic. Your notion probably carries more weight in the North where Lyman Beecher, his daughter Harriet Beecher Stowe, William Lloyd Garrison, and the Grimke sisters forced a religious debate over slavery which galvanized the abolition movement and free-soil movements that pushed the South to secede. So perhaps, South Carolina resisted the influence of the Awakenings and the North succombed to it. I'll go on record as saying that the Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening affected Northern Culture more than Southern since Slavery nullified its effects. However, after the Civil War, the evangelical legacy has remained entrenched more in the South than in the North where Industrialism, Catholicism, and Urbanity overwhelmed the evangelical movement begun by Jonathan Edwards, Gilbert Tennent, Theodore Frelinghuyson, and James Davenport. So depending on what time period you are talking about, the Awakening waxes and wanes for both sections. For now, the Awakening's legacy is more evident in the Bible Belt than the Rust Belt.November 10, 2005 at 8:01 am #4302kingjoey
ParticipantThat’s a good question, I don’t think the founding fathers had subdivision in mind when the layed the groundwork for this country, but they did leave the power in the hands of the states and the people with provisions to overthrow an oppressive gov’t. Legal or not, if things go sideways in this country it could happen again
November 11, 2005 at 7:57 pm #4303Phidippides
Keymasterkingjoey wrote:That’s a good question, I don’t think the founding fathers had subdivision in mind when the layed the groundwork for this country, but they did leave the power in the hands of the states and the people with provisions to overthrow an oppressive gov’t. Legal or not, if things go sideways in this country it could happen again
Yeah, I think that the power in the hands of the states has shifted in more recent times than what the Founding Fathers had anticipated. In fact, it's a good question to ask whether the original colonists would have agreed to become states which were united if they could have foreseen the federal government set up we have today.December 30, 2005 at 11:42 pm #4304rldowns3
ParticipantIn my opinion, that in all reality, the constitution was never intended to support a large central government with the powers it has today. I believe it was merely intended as a central support structure for independant states to protect their interests in freedom/rights, trade and mutual protection. There origionally wasn’t to be any real hard legal power over the states like there is today. In essence all they were questing for was a central form of rights that could be had by all people of all the states, that the states would adhere to and provide eachother with protection from outside agressors. The current government has outgrown the origional intent, and in some ways this is good and in others it is bad. I don’t think any of the states back then would have signed on to our current form of government today. They would have ran away from it screaming and flailing their arms.
Oh and I just took another look through the constitution and I didn't see anything in there barring seccession.January 3, 2006 at 9:52 pm #4305Phidippides
Keymasterrldowns3 wrote:The current government has outgrown the origional intent, and in some ways this is good and in others it is bad. I don’t think any of the states back then would have signed on to our current form of government today. I think you’re right about that. It would be interesting to read a paper on positions the Founding Fathers took in terms of centralized government, and where the United States now stands in relation to those original ideals.January 5, 2006 at 9:22 am #4306DonaldBaker
ParticipantSounds like a good editorial for the NJQ Online Journal. Anybody want to tackle it? I would submit the thesis that America today resembles the vision Alexander Hamilton had and he would be standing today stroking his chin with satisfaction at the power grabs exhibited by the Federal government. He felt a strong central government would serve an urbanized culture better than the agrarian society Jefferson longed for. Jefferson and Andrew Jackson would probably be mortified by our present government. Tough topic this is. 😀
March 20, 2006 at 3:50 pm #4307H.H. Buggfuzz
ParticipantI think rldowns pretty much nailed it.On another view, if secession was not legal how did the Union allow West Virginia to secede from Virginia ?
March 20, 2006 at 9:52 pm #4308DonaldBaker
ParticipantI guess secession from a state is not the same as secession from the union. Semantics is all it is.
April 8, 2006 at 3:40 am #4309Phidippides
Keymaster… and the Grimke sisters forced a religious debate over slavery which galvanized the abolition movement and free-soil movements that pushed the South to secede. ….
Alright, so who were the Grimke Sisters?
April 9, 2006 at 1:01 am #4310DonaldBaker
ParticipantThe Grimke Sisters were abolitionists who crusaded alongside Lloyd Garrison and Lyman Beecher. They were very vocal activists from South Carolina. You can read about them from this link: http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2000/grimke4.html
April 9, 2006 at 1:29 am #4311Phidippides
KeymasterInteresting to read about the lives the sisters led. Although they were early “feminists”, I imagine they'd be hitting their heads against the wall now if they were to see what the modern feminist movement has led to.This part says a lot about Sarah Grimke:
An early feminist, she wanted to become an attorney and follow in her father's footsteps. He was chief judge of the Supreme Court of South Carolina. She studied constantly until her parents found out that she intended to go to college with her brother - then they forbid her to study her brother's books or any language. Her father supposedly remarked that if "she [Sarah] had not been a woman she would have made the greatest jurist in the land."
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.