Author Topic: Two great books on Secession  (Read 2959 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Two great books on Secession
« on: June 23, 2008, 04:53:31 AM »
I've just finished reading two really good books:

1. A Constitutional History of Secession  by John Remington Graham
and
2. When in the Course of Human Events "Arguing the case for Southern Secession"  by Charles Adams

John Graham is the lawyer who went to Canada to help Quebec in it's quest for secession and Charles Adams is the worlds leading scholar on the history of taxation.

Just a few of the many facts that came from reading these books are:

1. As the Maryland legislators were getting ready to vote for secession (which the people had already approved) Lincoln sent troops in and arrested them all and held a revote. He placed troops at every voting place and the troops/slaves were also told to vote "for the Union". He replaced the government with Union men.
Similar things were done in Kentucky to keep it within the Union.
2. Suspended the privilege of Habeas Corpus. All in all over 13,000 citizens were arrested by the military and held without any hope of a fair trial. The two most famous being US Rep. Clement Vallandigham and US Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney. Lincoln personally signed Taney's arrest warrent but the Head of the US Marshal service (Mr. Lamon) was wise enough to not serve it on Justice Taney. The warrent survives in Lamon's papers in the Huntington Library's collection.
3. Some of those that were held were hung without a proper civil trial.
4. Several 100 Newspapers were shut down and their owners/editors were arrested and held without bond in military custody. Civilian courts were not allowed to operate.
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2008, 01:54:15 AM »
When in the Course of Human Events "Arguing the case for Southern Secession"  by Charles Adams

A book review:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1100g.asp

What follows are quotes from that review, enjoy.


That the primary factor in bringing about the American Civil War was the long-running debate and dispute over free trade and protectionism between the South and the North is the essential theme that Charles Adams develops in his new book, When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession.

Central to his argument is the idea that the Southern states had the right to secede, if sufficient provocation warranted dissolution of the Union. Adams insists that the very rationale for the American War of Independence against British rule in the 18th century had been the right of people to separate themselves from one political authority and form a new government and political entity. If this was true in 1776, how could it be any less true in 1861? Indeed, many of the flash points of international affairs today — Russia's insistence on retaining political control over Chechnya or communist China's demand that Taiwan accept political control by Beijing, or the Israelis resisting full political independence for a Palestinian state — are all examples of a political authority trying to prevent or suppress secessionist movements by people who do not want to accept or remain under a government's political authority.


An independent Confederate States of America, therefore, meant a threat to the economic viability of the Northern higher-cost producers, who would now have to price-compete for Southern consumers against their European rivals. And the costs of the federal government would now fall entirely on the shoulders of the taxpayers of the Northern states. These consequences, Adams argues, were considered intolerable in the North. Hence, the decision was made by President Lincoln to not relinquish Fort Sumter at the mouth of Charleston Harbor in South Carolina.

Furthermore, the initiation of hostilities against the Southern states, Adams explains, was undertaken by Lincoln in clear violation of the procedures outlined in the Constitution. And once war was under way, Lincoln continued to violate the Constitution and to infringe on freedoms of the American people.


Lincoln's usurpation of congressional authority

For example, Lincoln only called Congress into session three months after hostilities broke out in April of 1861, in the meantime implementing various executive decisions that clearly involved a usurpation of congressional authority. He ordered up the militias of the states in the Union to suppress the Southern states; instituted a naval blockade of the Southern ports (which threatened incidents or conflicts with foreign powers whose ships might attempt entry into Southern waters); initiated government spending without congressional approval; suspended habeas corpus; and began closing newspapers in Union states that directly criticized his policies. Lincoln, Adams declares, “pushed the Constitution aside, ignored its checks and balances, and assumed the role and power of a Roman consul, a dictator in fact, for the duration of his life. ”

The most dramatic constitutional confrontation, Adams reminds the reader, occurred in 1861 when John Merryman was arrested and imprisoned by federal troops in Maryland. Merryman petitioned the chief justice of the United States, Roger Taney, for a writ of habeas corpus, who ordered that the commanding officer responsible for the arrest and Merryman appear in court. When neither did, Taney wrote a famous opinion accusing Lincoln of a grievous violation of the Constitution for unlawfully suspending the writ of habeas corpus and sent a copy of the opinion to the White House. Lincoln's response was to order Taney's arrest, which fortunately was never effected.


Wars are cruel and wild practices by human beings which always lead to death and destruction. But as the most lethal and destructive conflict among any of the “civilized nations ” in the 19th century, the Civil War was unique. Anti-Southern fanaticism reached such a peak in the North that calls were made for the mass murder of every white man, woman, and child in any of the Confederate states as well as the wholesale destruction of all means of livelihood for Southern whites.

And in fact the degree of violence against the civilian population of the Confederacy by the Union Army leads Adams to conclude that the orders of the Northern generals “made their behavior criminal by the laws of nations.... In fact, it will be hard to not call what he [lincoln] did a crime against the laws of war and nations, making Lincoln, as painful as it may be, a war criminal. ”


strongly and forcefully pointed out that he has no sympathy with slavery in the South and no desire to make an apology for it. If anything, his political views are clearly just the opposite; he is a thorough defender of individual liberty. What he does is demonstrate that the issue of slavery was not the “cause ” of the American Civil War, and that in fact, Lincoln and the citizens of the Northern states were quite willing to accept and support this “peculiar institution ” in the South.

What drove America into this terrible tragedy, which continues to leave its mark in the country, were the issues of free trade versus protectionism and the right of secession and self-determination. These are issues that continue to plague the modern world and continue to bring war and violence in their wake.
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP

Offline SouthernByGrace

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2008, 01:43:16 AM »
Wonderful Quotes Ga. I think I'll have to get a copy of both books. They seem very interesting.

One book I'd like to suggest, if you don't already have it, is "The South Was Right!", by Ronald & Donald Kennedy.
They have a whole section in the book directly debunking the "Yankee Myths of History."
It's a very good book. Very well researched, and extremely well documented, with over 27 pages of reference to prove their research.
Below is a short review, for those of you that haven't heard of it, followed by a couple of quotes from other reviews;

An authoritative and documented study of the mythology behind Civil War history and its lasting effects on contemporary society, "The South Was Right!"  uncovers evidence that the South was an independent country invaded, captured, and occupied by a vicious aggressor. The authors maintain, through rigorous research, that the South had a legal precedent to secede and a right to defend its borders. Even today it has just as much right to reclaim its liberty as the people of Poland, the Baltic States, Palestine, and the former Soviet Union have done. Southerners should read this book with a sense of urgency and obligation to the past. Others should read it with open minds.

"I was stunned by the scholarly material presented to show the Union account of the 'Civil War' to be a myth, a lie, a masterful piece of propaganda."
                                           Critical Review

"Every once in a while a book is published by a non-New York publishing house, which could shake up the country and possibly change the thinking of a lot of people. 'The South Was Right!'... is such a book." 
                                                                                                      Larry Lawrence, Abilene Reporter-News


DEO VINDICE
"Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees..."
Final words spoken by Gen. Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson, CSA

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2008, 02:09:28 PM »
Thanks SBG I have in fact read and enjoyed it. By the way I'm the only reader in my family who is interested in this subject and I'd be honored to loan you any of the books I have with the caveat that you would take care of and pass them on to others of like interest. (P.S. that goes for anyone here that truly has an interest in The war between the states). If you will but pay the shipping I'll be more than happy to share. I do have a few out of date fairly expensive  but used that you may not be able to get otherwise.
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP

Offline SouthernByGrace

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2008, 06:45:08 PM »
GW, Amazingly, I was about to make the same offer to you if you hadn't already read The South Was Right.
I would love to borrow them, one at the time. See what the postage would be and message me with the particulars and I'll forward it to you.
Thanks
"Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees..."
Final words spoken by Gen. Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson, CSA

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2008, 03:24:22 AM »
HUMMMM
No one denies that:
1) There are very favorable arguments for what the South did.
2) No one will argue that Abe overstepped the boundaries in some areas.
3) It is an irrefutable fact that the South tried too secede.

The Congress was not in session when the war broke out. It is not like today when a conference call can put things in motion almost immediately. It simply took longer and there were things within the states that had too be decided, individually.
Legally, illegally, right or wrong, with great cause, without great cause, without thinking, acting on greed/power/corruption the South did what it did and the results stand.
Abe did what he did based on need and timeliness.
I also fault much of the panic that accompanied many of his decisions. As I said a couple of times before the beginning of a war is accompanied by a cluster of mistakes.
I simply reject any argument that justifies dissolution of the Union. I don't reject that it happened or the outcome.
You point out great mistakes, and, wail at the wall strategizing too uphold the right. I reject the right--not the right too but the legality.
Now there are as many--or more--who would go to great lengths and blow as much wind--who defend the Union--some of them southern boys.
Read those also for a fair and balanced view.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline SouthernByGrace

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2008, 11:39:27 AM »
WL, name one (Southern Boys defending the Union.)

The South did not TRY to secede, They DID secede. The US acknowledged this fact, in 1868.
They had a functional Government.
There IS NO argument that justifies dissolution of the Union. They did NOT dissolve the Union, NOR attempt to, They only separated themselves from it, leaving 22 states to remain as the United States; leaving them to their OWN vices, the same way they wanted the STILL remaining Union to do. Eleven states leaving a coalition of 33 hardly comes close to dissolving the Union.
So, it is your contention that Abe NEEDED to violate the Constitution, BREAKING the LAW and completely overstepping his Authority ("did what he did based on NEED and TIMELINESS") because time was running out. Hmmm... Interesting.
The Union couldn't function without Southern textiles. The South wouldn't be strong-armed into selling ONLY to the North.

Yankees just will NEVER get it.
"Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees..."
Final words spoken by Gen. Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson, CSA

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2008, 03:37:41 PM »
GW, Amazingly, I was about to make the same offer to you if you hadn't already read The South Was Right.
I would love to borrow them, one at the time. See what the postage would be and message me with the particulars and I'll forward it to you.
Thanks

Great I'll get back to you Monday evening or Tuesday.
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #8 on: November 09, 2008, 10:47:11 AM »
Walter Prescott Webb.
I do.
They did secede and tried too lead others, by force or propaganda, into the same poor decision. Their inability to make the secession stick means that it did not hold up.
They did try and dissolve by secession. Didn't work did it?
It was an unnecssary act by Lincoln.
The South did very well without Cotton and in the future better prospects for the growing were seen.
West Texas produces much more cotton that the South ever did.
Before you ask, I wish too ask the question---"Which Southern state was the first too be readmitted too the Union?
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline SouthernByGrace

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #9 on: November 09, 2008, 01:20:19 PM »
WL, Tennessee was the first Southern state to be readmitted to the Union on July 24, 1866. Georgia was the last, on July 15, 1870. The complete list follows:

Date of readmission to representation to the U.S. House of Representatives, in order:

Tennessee - July 24, 1866
Arkansas   - June 22, 1868
Florida      - June 25, 1868
North Carolina - July 4, 1868
South Carolina - July 9, 1868
Louisiana    - July 9, 1868
Alabama     - July 13, 1868
Virginia       - January 26, 1870
Mississippi   - February 23, 1870
Texas        - March 30, 1870
Georgia      - July 15, 1870  *

*Georgia was actually readmitted twice. The first time was on July 21, 1868 but Her Representatives were unseated on March 5, 1869. The Yankees didn't think they could be counted on to "vote their way," so they replaced them... Yet another violation to the Constitution. But according to WL, this is perfectly fine. Let's try this today and see where it gets us...
"Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees..."
Final words spoken by Gen. Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson, CSA

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2008, 09:20:51 PM »
Correct. Because they were divided during the war and Texas near last.
The point is They all clamored too get back on board--before TEXAS. Texas is/was an obstinant state nation and many did not even want too be a state in the first place---but they have boys that recognized the facts.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2008, 02:15:18 AM »
Correct. Because they were divided during the war and Texas near last.
The point is They all clamored too get back on board--before TEXAS. Texas is/was an obstinant state nation and many did not even want too be a state in the first place---but they have boys that recognized the facts.
Blessings

Just how could they all clamor to "get back on board" if they never left as Lincoln would have us all believe?? That in and of itself is statement enough that Lincoln was wrong. Besides they weren't clamoring, they were drugged back kicking and screaming! ::)
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP

Offline littlecanoe

  • Trade Count: (14)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2008, 02:56:53 AM »
WL,

I was thinking about your stand on North vs South and wondered why you feel so strongly about a strong central government?   

Also, is your thinking somewhat tempered by the reasoning that right prevailed, therefore, the north was right since they won?

Offline SouthernByGrace

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2008, 05:08:10 AM »
WL, what part of this do you NOT understand? The Southern States were not ALLOWED to have Representative Governments until AFTER Reconstruction, which ended in 1878!
Therefor, they were NOT "clamoring to get back on board," they HAD NO SAY SO!
The "Representatives" were NOT elected, they were APPOINTED; so they were essentially the North's puppets.

I would like to see one shred of evidence that the South was trying to dissolve the Union. Every Union sympathizer claims this but can never show it as fact. Why? Because it wasn't fact.

Lincoln dissolved the Union when he ordered the all out invasion of the Confederacy.

Proof:
Many Unionists like to quote President Andrew Jackson's words, "The Federal Union - It must be preserved."
Yet few quote from Jackson's later explanation that the Union could not be preserved by force. Why? Because the Union he referred to was a voluntary union, and force, which precludes volition, would in and of itself destroy the very thing it was supposed to be preserving.

C.C. Burr, editor of the book, The Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character, noted:
The name of our federation is not Consolidated States, but United States. A number of states held together by coercion, or the point of a bayonet, would not be a Union. Union is necessarily voluntary - the act of choice, free association. Nor can this voluntary system be changed to one of force without the destruction of "The Union". The Austrian Empire is comprised of several States, as the Hungarians, the Poles, the Italians, etc, but it cannot be called a Union - it is Despotism. Is the relation between Russia and bayonet-held Poland a Union?
Is it not an insult and a mockery to call the compulsory relation between England and Ireland a Union? In all these cases there is only such a union as exists between the talons of the hawk and the dove, or between the jaws of the wolf and the lamb.
A Union of States necessarily implies separate sovereignties, voluntarily acting together. And to bruise these distinct sovereignties into one mass of power is, simply, to destroy the Union - to overthrow our system of Government.

So, it is MY contention that Abraham Lincoln, through the use of force, NOT THE SOUTH, through its attempted defense of that force, destroyed whatever Union existed before the War. 

DEO VINDICE




   
"Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees..."
Final words spoken by Gen. Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson, CSA

Offline littlecanoe

  • Trade Count: (14)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2008, 01:26:08 PM »
SBG,  Very well reasoned post.

We see the effects of Mr Lincolns working.  If he had planned to restore that which had been "broken"  we would still enjoy the rights of strong state governments that were under the protection of a weak Federal government. 

He ruined the very thing that he claimed to save.  His reasoning was not sound as he could not see that his first action against the confederate states directly destroyed their freedom and indirectly the freedom of those northern state.

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2008, 01:09:49 AM »
Breaking it down into its smallest units, I will reason it this way.
If a family is divided it is weak. If a state has the legal right too secede then do we give this same right too a berg, a city, a county?
Unity is the strongest method of perserving strength. not a strength of the government but the government being responsible for the welfare of the nation by unity. It makes more sense for there too be a central source of responsibility than numerous sources all doing their own thing. Roads/highways, transportation, army, etc.
Now if you say that it has overstepped, then I must ask you too identify IT and who it got ITS power from.
I would also maintain that this was exactly what the seceding states had in mind or was its purpose. These states were not united in the common good or for the common good. They were not even united. They were in it for theirownselves and did not even want too be responsible for one another. Let them do what they want and we will take care of our own. They were forced, in great measure, too fight a common war against a common foe but if you will examine the facts they were hardly united in this other than by common desire.
It is not just my opinion that if the Union had not taken a stand at this point in time that they would be facing a newly entrenched foreign government or governments in a short future. It was fight then or now. It was fight our own or fight Europe again.
Am I saying that there are not abuses? NO! I am asking how these abuses of power came too be if not by election.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline littlecanoe

  • Trade Count: (14)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2008, 01:45:39 AM »
WL,
I will respectfully disagree.  It is the responsibility of the state to protect the individual liberty, liberty being a combination of freedom and responsibility, of the people.  The people are not subject to surrendering their liberty for a state to be strong.  The strength of the USSR was brought low because it suppressed individual liberties.  Individual liberty is best preserved at the state level.  The last 140 odd years gives evidence of this.

In the process of forming this Republic, the founding fathers thought through this process and felt that the strength of the nation was in the individual liberties of the people.  The ability of this state nation was tested twice with success.  The war of 1812 and the fight against Mexico for the freedom of Texas.  Individual liberty is best preserved at the state level.  The last 140 odd years gives evidence of this.

The founding fathers were right and strength of statehood did not undermine the strength of our country as we remained free against two of the major world strengths.  England and Spain.

As to families, most will argue and fight with each other, but WOE be to the one that attacks that family or a member of the family.  This worked for us for 80 years. 

Offline SouthernByGrace

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2008, 05:02:57 AM »
Well put, littlecanoe.

There are those that, no matter what amount of evidence they are shown, they will never see the other side's point of view. They exercise this selective reasoning mainly because they have the luxury of being on the "winning" side, or believing the "winning" side was right in its righteous might. They will never even consider that the actual truth may not coincide with their beliefs, or what they have been taught.

They accept their government's teachings without question, as if they were handed down to them by God, himself.
Sadly, no amount of proof, no document, no piece of True History presented to this type person will ever be enough for them to say, "Hey, maybe I might need to look into this a little deeper because what I have been taught just doesn't jive with what I'm seeing here."

The worst part of it all is that this kind of behavior is EXACTLY what that government WANTS them to be engaged in. Never question your government, we always tell you the absolute and unfeddered truth.
They feel as if questioning the "official" account of events surrounding The War somehow might make them less patriotic, or even less of an American.

The State from which this kind of person comes is certainly not the state in which they reside,
which is the State of Denial.

DEO VINDICE

"Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees..."
Final words spoken by Gen. Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson, CSA

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2008, 05:31:05 AM »
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/woods2.htm

Which brings us to the section of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History that has provoked the loudest howls of outrage, the two chapters relating to the Civil War: Chapter 5, “The North-South Division,” and Chapter 6, “The War Between the States.” Woods clearly wants to tender a neo-Confederate interpretation, in which slavery is shunted into the background as a motive for southern secession. In his preface, he characterizes as a cliché the statement: “the Civil War was all about slavery” (p. xiii). Yet notice the ambiguity in the little word “all.” Drop it out entirely, to read “the Civil War was about slavery,” and you have a statement with which even Woods would have to agree. In fact, later on, Woods disclaims any attempt to show “that slavery was irrelevant or insignificant” (p. 48). Change the word “all” to “only,” yielding “the Civil War was only about slavery,” and you now have a claim that no serious historian would endorse.

Woods is too scrupulous to fall into the careless or blatant errors of the more amateurish neo-Confederate books, such as Tom DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln; Charles Adams's When in the Course of Human Events; or James and Walter Kennedy's The South Was Right.[1] The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History puts forward no such easily refutable claims as that the southern states had no concerns about slavery's future or that they really seceded over the tariff. The resulting account of the Civil War ends up far more mainstream than at first appears. Much of the two chapters' material, unaltered, could grace any standard treatment. A few of Woods's critics have gotten themselves all exercised over his assertion that “for at least the first eighteen months of the war, the abolition of slavery was not” the Union's war aim (p. 65). But no Civil War scholar would dream of denying the unmitigated truth of that assertion.
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2008, 05:41:05 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

The main rationale for the argument that states could not legally secede was derived from the Articles of Confederation's description of the American Union as perpetual. This, combined with the current Constitution's expressed goal of creating a more perfect Union, suggested that the United States was now more perfectly perpetual. Also cited was the statement in Article Four of the United States Constitution that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." This implies that Texas would always be a state, distinct from its government (since the Constitution refers to a state as having a government rather than being a government). This also suggested that the Constitution could work to ensure states remain intact and to regulate state governments. As the Court wrote, "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." Hence Texas would still be a state even when laws are passed saying it is independent. Such laws would be "absolutely null."
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2008, 07:09:13 AM »
We are close but we will never see it the same, yet we have benefited and prospered under this system all these years.
I am not discounting individual freedoms. You boys keep mentioning that the state should guard these freedoms. What is the state then if not a central government set up by the people and for the people--of that state.
Those boys are elected.
What if a county disagreed with the State? Can they secede? Are they counting on a central government too protect those rights. What if a state government declared all slaves free? Are you going too object to Polk County, Texas from seceding? They then become a nation. Then maybe Corrigan in Polk, county wants too be a gambling state. Can they secede because their rights are threatened and they want their liberty? Can then the individual say I am a drinking person and this dry county prevents my personal freedom. Can his precinct secede?
Yes I do see your point. Yes I do understand your point. I just don't think that you carry it too its logical end.
Personal liberties must be protected or you have anarchy. Personal liberties must conform too limitations or you have anarchy. Well until some strong arm steps in and takes your liberty and freedom and makes you conform too his will.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline littlecanoe

  • Trade Count: (14)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2008, 11:34:57 AM »
WL,

Personal liberties and liberty are subtly different.  If we contrast the American and French revolution we will see that the American supported liberty.  Liberty is a coin on which one side is freedom and the other responsibility.  The French revolution supported personal liberties, I'll mis-spell this, the Les e'faire mentality.  Let the people do as they will.  The French attempt that mimicked our revolution failed.  It led a nation into mass rebellion.

Our revolution was successful because it was ordered through the magistrates of the nation and not a mass uprising.  I'll return your question.  If the south wasn't justified in setting up their own form of government how in the world were the founding fathers of this nation, a mere 1/3 of the population at that time justified in rebelling against King George?


Offline SouthernByGrace

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2008, 12:33:37 PM »
ironfoot, in case you've never noticed, The Articles of Confederation was made OBSOLETE when EVERY state in the UNION SECEDED from it to form a Constitutional Union.

The concept of perpetual union does have an American historical precedent. The Articles of Confederation, the government that preceded the original Constitutional Republic, did have a clause in its preamble stating that the Articles of Confederation was establishing a perpetual union! What happened to this perpetual union? Well, believe it or not, each state SECEDED from it, dissolved that union, and established a new union among only those states that subsequently ratified the Constitution. Try as hard as you might, you will never be able to discover similar language - perpetual union - in the United States Constitution.
We might say that the guarantee of a perpetual union is conspicuous by its absence. The Founding Fathers made the mistake of guaranteeing one perpetual union that did not work out, and they were not going to make the same mistake again!
The Constitution's expressed goal of creating a "more perfect union," in absolutely NO WAY suggests that it would be more perfectly perpetual. Why else do you think the Founding Fathers left out that kind of language? They knew what they were doing.

As for slavery being an issue of the War, of course it was! However, it was certainly Not THE Issue. You have to realize that the South asked for and was denied the same system of abolition as the North was afforded. At the time, before the War, almost every white man in America believed the same about slavery, North and South. Slavery at that time was strictly thought of as owning property. Just to give you a sample of what this cost the South, to have their property ripped from them in this way, let's look at just one State. The state of Louisiana lost $170,000,000 in slave property. Remember, this was in 1860's dollars!

Now, let's look at the cost in terms of turning out nearly 4 million former slaves. These people were literally thrown to the wolves. They were not allowed to be trained in any fashion for life as a free people. They had no jobs. The North certainly didn't want them, because they would most definitely be in competition for white jobs. The Southern leaders, especially Jefferson Davis, felt this to be a vile and cruel treatment. He actually stated openly that "for a slave to be made fit for freedom, he has to be made unfit for slavery. This can only be accomplished through education."

Could it be the reason you won't read some of the books mentioned in your post is because you might just discover the truth about some things you think we're wrong about? The South was Right has more that 27 pages of references to prove the authors' point of view. This cannot be simply dismissed as conjecture.
"Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees..."
Final words spoken by Gen. Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson, CSA

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #23 on: November 11, 2008, 08:55:38 PM »
As I have said before and will state again; breaking a union down to its most common denominator; a marrage. A marrage is a union that in Gods eyes is supposed to be forever; most of us would agree that in its best form the truth of that statement is self evident, would you not agree? Did God not allow for divorce? Would God think it right to beat your spouse into submission? Now if we assume that the man is married to several women it is still a union but with several parts. If one of the members leaves without undo distress there is no major problem and the union is still in force with the remaining persons. Now if the one who wants to leave is handcuffed and beaten into submission in order to be made to stay; is that any way to maintain that union? If your answer to that question is yes its OK to do that or it was the right thing to do because of ........ whatever then I humbly  suggest you really need to see a counselor and I question your sanity.

In its base form that is what happened to the 11 Southern states. It matters not the reasons, you can go on and on about slavery was bad, Lincoln was a saint, the North had cause just like a man can say my wife was caught cheating, she spends all my money, my husband beats me, my husband throws away all our money and the kids go hungry, or anyother excuse you want to name. It does not give you the right to impost your will on that other person. Lincoln had no right to impose his will on those states by way of the sword and common sense should tell you this. All the other arguments just fall by the wayside when you talk of subjugating those states. And its all made worse because the freed slaves had no where to go and most had no way to make a living on their own. It was like throwing a baby to wolves. The North surely didn't want them and had laws set up to make sure they didn't show up. You can disagree, as is your right, but I say this to you with all due respect; I'm sure greatful I'm not you spouse.
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2008, 01:13:44 PM »
Moses allowed divorce--God forbids, then we get into grace.
The Union was not willing, for the sake of the Union, to show such grace.
Let's look at it from another angle.
The Union was afraid of having two foreign neighbors sandwiching them.
The rational fear was a war on two fronts, which they felt they could not win.
The rational supplement too this fear was the foothold a European government would establish in this Confederacy.
It is illogical not too see the soft underside of the Confederacy and all of its weakness beginning with the fact of it not being a cohesive union and the still great desire of several European nations too reestablish a foothold of colonization and expansion in the now seen benefits of the west.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2008, 12:37:31 AM »
LC
I agree that someone--in the case of democracy it is elected officials of each state, in union, who represent the will of the people. I agree that sometimes it seems as if we slip=up on this, and probably do.
It is the obligation of the majority too protect the minority. Great words, hard too do.
The USSR had a mock vote, it was totalitarian in fact. the people did not represent theirownselves.
Let's consider this as a good example of what we are discussing.
It would be a shamble/unworkable if all were able too present bills for consideration of all people and for all the people vote on each and every proposition.
So, we reason that we will elect officials to represent us, speak for us. We put in checks and balances too prevent, as best we can, abuses.
We agree too abide by the decision of the majority.
Now this is a strong Union.
No harem scar-em, I will take my ball and go home if I don't get my way. United in a common goal. Read the preamble.
NOW, and we skirt the issue for fear of being marked a racist, slavery was a very big issue. It was, I will project, the major issue of those monied, in power folks. It was their life blood. It made the economy of the south work.
I will maintain that the propaganda put forth by these folks swayed the blood and ferverancy in the South.
This issue came too a head with Lincoln but it was a checkers game for the South for many years before.
Did many in the North have slaves? Yes, of course. The slave in the North was not an economic issue for the economy, however. I will argue that the slave owner in the North was big business and all worked fore the company store.
Lincoln said everybody should have the right too quit.
A friend's father was an old west texas cowhand. He said that every man should have the right too quit and he should exercise it on a regular basis. This man worked, and ran, some big operations in that part of texas. My friend went too 11 different schools .
Now this issue was determined in the beginning of the 20Th century with the advent of trade unions. There were civil wars fought just as was in the South, too gain these freedoms. Slavery is controlling and by this control is owning.
This soap box is clear.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline littlecanoe

  • Trade Count: (14)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2008, 01:22:49 AM »
WL, 
I will confess that at times I am quite dense.  In fairness to you, I was only able to quickly read your post as I'm in a rush this morning and couldn't devote a lot of time to understanding all that you were saying.  I'll come back to it again to review.

Having said that, I believe that you were answering my question about the southern patriots and colonial patriots who tried to throw off perceived tyranny.  Let me ask the question in a more neutral way. 

What justified the founders of this nation in breaking away from a power/nation that was greater than them and offered broader protection?

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2008, 09:13:31 AM »
I have no problem with revolution. I have no problem with the South seceding.
I have no problem with the Union trying too maintain a Union.
Should the South also maintain this attitude? We tried?
They did try and they lost.
I don't know what too say. That is the way it happened.
I don't believe that is the power of this discussion however. No one can argue the South into victory. As right as you believe and as loud as you cry foul it ends up in a victory for the Union.
Now what we discuss is why and how. The reasons are really a pointless digression from the rest.
You want too cry foul. OK! You want a referee to award the War too you?
See my point.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline littlecanoe

  • Trade Count: (14)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2008, 02:31:15 PM »
WL, my friend, you just scare me a bit at times as I see hints of federalism in your arguments.

You know my theology.  I'll stand true to that.  I hope that this will make sense to all.  I believe that God is sovereign in all things.  The north did win but just as the soviets ruled their area of the world it didn't make their cause right in a good vs evil right vs wrong sense.  In the sense that the soviet regime was allowed to rule that area of the world for the time that they did was right in the sense that it accomplished God's purpose.

In the same sense, the South was right on principle and, imo, is still right based on principle.  As to rightness, the north won and that was what pleased God for His greater purpose.

I'll argue that the principles and cause were right but at the same time a different right prevailed. 

Offline Ga.windbreak

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • Gender: Male
Re: Two great books on Secession
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2008, 10:39:11 PM »
I have no problem with revolution. I have no problem with the South seceding.
I have no problem with the Union trying too maintain a Union.
Should the South also maintain this attitude? We tried?
They did try and they lost.
I don't know what too say. That is the way it happened.
I don't believe that is the power of this discussion however. No one can argue the South into victory. As right as you believe and as loud as you cry foul it ends up in a victory for the Union.
Now what we discuss is why and how. The reasons are really a pointless digression from the rest.
You want too cry foul. OK! You want a referee to award the War too you?
See my point.
Blessings

Yes is the answer to both your statements. The thing that most here (at least its my feeling) want is a true reflection of the history from that era. Not the North was the good guy and the South was the bad guy version that we were all spoon fed in HS and C and some here still cling to as true. Justice is not served by sugar coating that time in our history. In point of fact, IMO, it only serves to keep our two sections divided. There were good men on both sides who felt strongly about the direction this country was headed. Then there were the fanatics who had their own agenda. Popular history paints Lincoln as a Saint putting him ahead of even George Washington. All the while painting Jefferson Davis as nothing more than a common Traitor. Both of those statements are so far from the truth its sicking. If a man or and state, in its opinion, sees the Constitution being abused from its true meaning and does nothing; there stands your true traitor. Yet another man stands up and says that is wrong, just because its not the popular stand, makes him no less a Patriot even though some say traitor.

Some believe that Slavery was a racist issue (during that time in our history) and the HBS's Uncle Tom's Cabin reflects a true picture of the life of those times. It was a work of fiction by a Fanatic bent on causing insurrection. John Brown's acts were no different. I liken his acts to those of a mad man shooting Dr.s at a clinic or those who break into/blow up research buildings or burn down people's homes to make a statement. Those are your true traitors. You want a traitor, I'll name one for you, Jane Fonda.

Everyone has the God given right to Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness and in my mind that includes States.

Was the South right or wrong, as you say WL, right or wrong they lost and that settled it as to the fact that the South wasn't allowed to leave and is still part of these United States. Do I love my country, yes with all my heart, putting my life on the line for almost 5 years in her service. I would do it again, without question! What I will not do is allow anyone from the President on down to cheapen the Constitution by abusing it without at the very least putting in my 2 cents.

If you want to read the words of a racist I invite you to read what Lincoln said about the black man. If you want to know the truth of how Jefferson Davis treated the slaves in his care and how the majority feeling was between master and slave in the South was from the 1700's to 1865. then read about it from the records of the times. As I pointed out in another post Jeff Davis adopted a young black boy who was being mistreated by a black woman that his mother left him with. That doesn't say much for the boys mother or the woman she left him with but it says alot about Jeff Davis, the white man, who saved him and raised him as his own until Northern solders took him away from Davis when he was captured. While Davis was in prison who was the man Jeff Davis intrusted his family's wellfare to, you got it, one of his former slaves.

- Robert Brown

And The young man Davis saved

- Jim Limber
"Men do not differ about what
Things they will call evils;
They differ enormously about what evils
They will call excusable." - G.K. Chesterton

"It starts when you begin to overlook bad manners. Anytime you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am", the end is pretty much in sight."-Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men

Private John Walker Roberts CSA 19th Battalion Georgia Cavalry - Loyalty is a most precious trait - RIP